Twitter Bans Misgendering & Deadnaming Transgender Community

Dec 22, 2010
1,862
212
525
Yes and they are far left cali morons for the most part, what is your point?
What did making up rules on the fly because of the npc thing while ignoring calling every conservative a bot for 2 years not give it away?
What did the racist the nytimes hired that ranted and raved in the most disgusting language about white people for two years not getting banned hell not even losing her blue checkmark not give it away?
What did jack admitting twitter is left leaning and unjustified banns thousands of conservatives not give it away?
Are you blind, stupid or deliberately and knowingly just pretend these things are a not a thing because it wouldn't fit your political and world view?
You're making a lot of presumptions and taking things personal. If you can't engage me rationally and levelheaded there is no discussion to be had. I welcome you to quote me again and try to leave the insults aside and also please provide sources for your claims.

Now playing the high ground card after posting a video with the purpose of calling anyone banned on twitter a asshole is a bit rich.
That is your own misunderstanding of the conversation and my intent for posting the video.
 
Last edited:
Jun 20, 2018
1,254
1,237
205
You're making a lot of presumptions and taking things personal. If you can't engage me rationally and levelheaded there is no discussion to be had. I welcome you to quote me again and try to leave the insults aside and also please provide sources for your claims.
Now playing the high ground card after posting a video with the purpose of calling anyone banned on twitter a asshole is a bit rich.
 
Dec 22, 2010
1,862
212
525
Moderators still need to act according to the parameters defined by a TOS. What are Twitter's parameters for defining what constitutes a slur?
Clearly, that's up to the moderators and admin to decide what kind of culture they want to establish. What I want to know is, since this policy has been in effect since October, who exactly has Twitter reprimanded/banned for acting against their new policy so that the users can better understand the current interpretation of the policy and Twitter culture. It just feels odd to me we're 7 pages deep and we're still on the possibilities that may exist rather than that which has actually transpired.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
2,000
2,870
360
Clearly, that's up to the moderators and admin to decide what kind of culture they want to establish. What I want to know is, since this policy has been in effect since October, who exactly has Twitter reprimanded/banned for acting against their new policy so that the users can better understand the current interpretation of the policy and Twitter culture. It just feels odd to me we're 7 pages deep and we're still on the possibilities that may exist rather than that which has actually transpired.
The policies which, as stated back on pages 1 and 2, are far too general. Moderators can easily take advantage and act in petty ways - pushing their horrible mindset/ideology, just look at ResetEra, or some of the mods that used to be here on Gaf (Besada, Amirox, etc). Hell, there is already a case to show that the Twitter mods seem to leave miserable groups like ANTIFA on twitter, despite people reporting them.
 
Last edited:
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,319
700
Australia
Clearly, that's up to the moderators and admin to decide what kind of culture they want to establish. What I want to know is, since this policy has been in effect since October, who exactly has Twitter reprimanded/banned for acting against their new policy so that the users can better understand the current interpretation of the policy and Twitter culture. It just feels odd to me we're 7 pages deep and we're still on the possibilities that may exist rather than that which has actually transpired.
Sorry, no. That's no way to operate a forum, especially one as large as Twitter, unless you want moderators going rogue. There need to be clearly defined parameters and trusting individual moderators to adjudicate consistently on each specific case of a reported "slur" is a recipe for disaster.
 
Likes: Shmunter
Aug 25, 2018
269
243
210
- Christianity is a religion that is optimised to spread, it is ingrained into christianity to distribute a large amount of unscientific, unbased factual claims. I cannot call it lying, because Christians tend to believe their outrageous claims, but let's call it bullshitting. Distributing obviously false stuff as truth is immoral from my perspective.
- On top of that, in Germany, the churches have schools, hospitals and kindergartens where the state pays almost the full expense, but the churches still claim special rights in terms of employment, e.g. they demand people who work there are members of the church, do not remarry, do not marry homosexually, cannot form unions and so on.
- Christianity stood in the way of science countless times and has been used as validation for war
- Christian belief is the best friend of deadly sexuall transmittable diseases particularly in Africa
- The churches put arbitrary restrictions, e.g. on sexuality, on their members
- The churches still are opposing scientific progress, e.g. in the case of genetic research. Particularly in Germany their influence is horribly large in that regard...
- Christian groups actively try to attack education with bullshit teachings such as intelligent design
- Christians like to cherrypick "Christian ethics", but if you look at the bible, it becomes very clear that you need to be very, veeery picky with Christian doctrine to get anything remotely resembling ethics.

I hope this are sufficiently many examples for you why I consider the church deeply immoral


Haha, sorry couldn’t help myself. Apologies, what’s a thread without a meme injected on occasion.

That’s Batman’s reaction to Bill Maher’s critique of Islam fundamentals. Because Islam is a race apparently.

Man I wish I never found out how stupid some of my favourite movie stars are.
 
Last edited:
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,319
700
Australia


Haha, sorry couldn’t help myself. Apologies, what’s a thread without a meme injected on occasion.

That’s Batman’s reaction to Bill Maher’s critique of Islam fundamentals. Because Islam is a race apparently.

Man I wish I never found out how stupid some of my favourite movie stars are.
I wonder what skeletons Ben has in his closet. Him and De Niro project so hard they must have some dirt on them.
 
Dec 22, 2010
1,862
212
525
Sorry, no. That's no way to operate a forum, especially one as large as Twitter, unless you want moderators going rogue. There need to be clearly defined parameters and trusting individual moderators to adjudicate consistently on each specific case of a reported "slur" is a recipe for disaster.
Except this has been the policy for quite some time, nothing has changed other than transgenders being included within this policy. Is there not a similarly large gray area within the scope of racism, sexism, bigotry towards religious beliefs, etc especially considering the context that an individual's cultural background brings into that gray area? Does Twitter have an established history of illogically punishing users that operate within the gray areas that substantiates the tone found within this thread? And if Twitter does why the inconsistent outrage over misgendering prompting such a reaction and why haven't we had this discussion over Twitter policy before?

Edit: Striking through my last question. Whataboutism doesn't make for good discussion.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
1,957
1,863
295
your mind
I’ve seen some snippets on DeNiro. But I simply refuse to look further because I do not want to ruin the mans incredible legacy for myself.
Same here. I can’t believe such a legendary and respected thespian lowers himself to acting like a spoiled, uninformed and vulgar millenial. It’s embarrassing. I can’t watch it.
 
Likes: Kadayi
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,319
700
Australia
Except this has been the policy for quite some time, nothing has changed other than transgenders being included within this policy. Is there not a similarly large gray area within the scope of racism, sexism, bigotry towards religious beliefs, etc especially considering the context that an individual's cultural background brings into that gray area? Does Twitter have an established history of illogically punishing users that operate within the gray areas that substantiates the tone found within this thread? And if Twitter does why the inconsistent outrage over misgendering prompting such a reaction and why haven't we had this discussion over Twitter policy before?

Edit: Striking through my last question. Whataboutism doesn't make for good discussion.
Racism, sexism, etc. aren't re-defining language and forcing it on other people. Having words that you can't say is completely different to having words that you must say.
 
Jul 7, 2018
812
1,174
240
To the people calling for the moderators to decide, well, how do you expect them to do that, given the rules that appear to be being laid down here?

Let's take Ailynn as an example. I have no problem calling her "she", "her" and so on. I do not call into question that she's suffering from gender dysphoria in the way in which she describes. I feel empathy for her and wish I could click my fingers and magically fix things for her in one way or the other. But it's easy to say that, right?

But what if I suddenly said that I'm a woman and you must call me "she" and "her"? Who is to decide in that case, and on what criteria will they base their decisions?

These are the questions that leftists should have all the answers for, but they never do. They've got the "but muh transphobia!!!" shrieks down perfectly, but when it comes to nuance, complexity etc. - well, as always, they are fucked.
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,319
700
Australia
To the people calling for the moderators to decide, well, how do you expect them to do that, given the rules that appear to be being laid down here?

Let's take Ailynn as an example. I have no problem calling her "she", "her" and so on. I do not call into question that she's suffering from gender dysphoria in the way in which she describes. I feel empathy for her and wish I could click my fingers and magically fix things for her in one way or the other. But it's easy to say that, right?

But what if I suddenly said that I'm a woman and you must call me "she" and "her"? Who is to decide in that case, and on what criteria will they base their decisions?

These are the questions that leftists should have all the answers for, but they never do. They've got the "but muh transphobia!!!" shrieks down perfectly, but when it comes to nuance, complexity etc. - well, as always, they are fucked.
I think the simple solution is to have it as a medical diagnosis because it's a medical condition. This self-identification non-binary Tumblr crap is confounding the problem and causing enormous push back against people with legitimate gender dysphoria.
 
Dec 22, 2010
1,862
212
525
Racism, sexism, etc. aren't re-defining language and forcing it on other people. Having words that you can't say is completely different to having words that you must say.
I don't see any fundamental difference between mandating what one must say and what one must not say not to mention you can absolutely frame misgendering and deadnaming around what can't be said.
To the people calling for the moderators to decide, well, how do you expect them to do that, given the rules that appear to be being laid down here?

Let's take Ailynn as an example. I have no problem calling her "she", "her" and so on. I do not call into question that she's suffering from gender dysphoria in the way in which she describes. I feel empathy for her and wish I could click my fingers and magically fix things for her in one way or the other. But it's easy to say that, right?

But what if I suddenly said that I'm a woman and you must call me "she" and "her"? Who is to decide in that case, and on what criteria will they base their decisions?

These are the questions that leftists should have all the answers for, but they never do. They've got the "but muh transphobia!!!" shrieks down perfectly, but when it comes to nuance, complexity etc. - well, as always, they are fucked.
Not having a perfect answer is not a valid reason to simply not do something at all. We as a society are still deciding what constitutes as racism or sexism. We'll be at this with transgenderism for quite some time.
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,319
700
Australia
I don't see any fundamental difference between mandating what one must say and what one must not say not to mention you can absolutely frame misgendering and deadnaming around what can't be said.

Not having a perfect answer is not a valid reason to simply not do something at all. We as a society are still deciding what constitutes as racism or sexism. We'll be at this with transgenderism for quite some time.
Deadnaming could be framed as what one cannot say, sure, but the problem is that it is unique to each individual unlike words like the N word. That makes it much more difficult to manage. Misgendering is absolutely mandating what one must say.

My friend, if you genuinely believe that there is no fundamental difference between mandating what one must say and what one cannot say, you have not thought the problem through fully.
 
Dec 22, 2010
1,862
212
525
Deadnaming could be framed as what one cannot say, sure, but the problem is that it is unique to each individual unlike words like the N word. That makes it much more difficult to manage. Misgendering is absolutely mandating what one must say.

My friend, if you genuinely believe that there is no fundamental difference between mandating what one must say and what one cannot say, you have not thought the problem through fully.
I see them both in the context as curbing free speech which society has determined as a necessity and if society has determined that we must have such a necessity to protect certain groups then gender identity belongs within that sphere. Now to be clear, I think a bit of a conflation has occurred between the limitless supposed genders that Tumblr invented last week and my position which is restricted within the realms of he/she/it.

In a more general statement, I'm asking the chicken littles of this thread to substantiate, even once, that someone on Twitter has been banned for an honest mistake, an accidental misgenderism or any such action.
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,319
700
Australia
I see them both in the context as curbing free speech which society has determined as a necessity and if society has determined that we must have such a necessity to protect certain groups then gender identity belongs within that sphere. Now to be clear, I think a bit of a conflation has occurred between the limitless supposed genders that Tumblr invented last week and my position which is restricted within the realms of he/she/it.

In a more general statement, I'm asking the chicken littles of this thread to substantiate, even once, that someone on Twitter has been banned for an honest mistake, an accidental misgenderism or any such action.
A particular subset of society wants free speech to be curbed, but I’m part of another subset that doesn’t want it. Does what I want matter?

What you call protection, I would not.
 
Aug 25, 2018
269
243
210
Racism, sexism, etc. aren't re-defining language and forcing it on other people. Having words that you can't say is completely different to having words that you must say.
There are no words that we can’t say as far as I know in a free society. Civil discourse, attacking others, defamation etc. are not governed by a set of words defined by authorities. This is precisely why being forced to use words is so bizarre.

Nothing to do with transgendered people, it’s the basic principle of what compelled speech represents and what hole it leads down to. Namely opening up a can of worms to introducing gotchyas to essentially shut down ideas and remove parts of society that don’t suit the powers that be. Is that what Liberalisim is now? Because it’s clearly Totalitarianism.

In essence...

The compelled speech doctrine sets out the principle that the government cannot force an individual or group to support certain expression. Thus, the First Amendment not only limits the government from punishing a person for his speech, it also prevents the government from punishing a person for refusing to articulate, advocate, or adhere to the government’s approved messages.
 
May 4, 2005
11,419
653
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
This says more about your understanding of Christianity than it does about actual Christianity, the crazy thing is even if your list would be true Christianity STILL would be the most harmless out of the big three which is one reason why to this day I dont understand the lefts fixation on Christianity while courting Islam for example. To me it feels like a excuse to be bigoted against the one religion out of the big 3 that is easy to hate because it doesn't hit back.
Where have I courted Islam? their superstitions are no better than Christianity's, with a much larger percentage of fundamentalists. The negative impact on the society I live in is larger with Christianity, because it is so far-spread and entangled with government. I only talked about Christianity specifically, because I was asked about it. I gave the example of Islam together with Christianity originally.
I'm am for adult stem cell research but am against embryonic stem cell research. The reasons why I am against embryonic is because it kills an unborn child in the process (which is scientifically and objectively true, you can however argue that the unborn child doesn't have much worth) and I believe every human life is sacred. Also what do you mean by "superstition"? It also seems a bit demeaning to call things you don't believe in or understand as "superstition". Do you think it would be appropriate for me to label all your sets of beliefs as false without trying to be respectful and understanding your point of view?
Call everything I believe superstition if you want and I am happy if you have good arguments for that, because it is tentamount to me to be strict with what I believe. Either it is scientifically validated or I will not believe it. If I assume something to be scientifically validated but it is not, then I am grateful to hear arguments why it is merely a superstition. Christian belief ist superstitious because it is a belief in the super natural, with absolutely no indication it is true and it makes bold, unrealistic claims (Yahweh's existance, Jesus being his son, and son of a virgin, necromancy and demons being real things, as well as giants, the devil will shoot stars onto the surface of earth and so on and so on. Basically, the bible reads like a fantasy book).



What do you mean that medics and teachers/ people who work for churches can't marry? I honestly have never heard of this. Also what do you mean by the church having a market monopoly?
Let me repeat the word, since you have misread it twice already: remarry. So split up and then marry again. And they cannot enter a homosexual marriage either.

Churches aren't businesses, they don't exist to raise captial. They exist for spiritual purposes to help get their community closer to God. I don't see whu they shouldn't have certain exemptions.
First, because spreading supeerstitions in itself is the core immorality I am concerned with and I do not want to support that in any way (But, this is important: I would always fight for their right to believe their superstitions and act on them as long as they harm no one else. Thought control is inacceptable). Morreover, at least in Germany, the church owns a majority of hospitals, kindergartens and elderly homes, as well as a large amount of schools. First issue: The state still pays for that, so the church only reaps the benefits without investing the money necessary. Second issue: These jobs in those institutions still fall under different, more restrictive rules to benefit the church. This is inacceptable.


I have, you just didn't give any reason. For example, you claim that Christianity is anti-science without an actual evidence and also claim that Christians help make the aids crisis in Africa worse without saying why.
What? I did give some very recent examples, advocating against the use of contraceptives (including condoms) helps distributing AIDS, Christians have opposed (strongly) stem-cell research and hampered research in Germany (at least) as a result.

Hate/dislike Christianity all you want, but don't pretend that all Christians are anti-science and anti-intellectualism.
Which I never said. Many powerful ones are and the inherently superstitious nature of Christianity (and let me add for people who only read some postings here: All other religions) supports anti-science and anti-intellectualism positions.
 
Sep 4, 2018
1,021
928
225
Yoshi seems pretty hung up on religion when harmful behavior can be attributed to all kinds of irrational systems (and just plain narcissism & nihilism). it is an easy and long-used scapegoat. misreading a book written thousands of years ago during a time of violent revolution and persecution then removing all context and saying those were violent people is ahistorical and anti-intellectual.

fwiw there is currently a worship of money and a worship of power structures that also trumps science and public well-being. people are evangelizing with a fury, casting out heretics (purity politics), making sweeping statements about how only their side is right and the other side literally will end the world. Al Gore's first movie predicted cities underwater by 2014.

unfortunately you can't call politics a religion or a superstition, despite literal lives sacrificed for The Market.

not sure what any of this has to do with Twitter or transgenderism, might be nice for a new topic.
 
Last edited:
Aug 24, 2016
924
240
255
Ummm we tried and the only thing that didnt lead to people killing themselves is reassignment surgery .
This is false on two fronts. One there hasn't been any real attempt at all to fight against the things cause defects like transgenderism. Or other issues like cancer and etc. But once money goes around people will pretend that happened when it actually didn't.

Secondly, there is zero improvement in suicides post surgery. The rate is the same and in some communities higher. But of course when money moves around people don't talk about that.
 
Aug 24, 2016
924
240
255
I think the simple solution is to have it as a medical diagnosis because it's a medical condition. This self-identification non-binary Tumblr crap is confounding the problem and causing enormous push back against people with legitimate gender dysphoria.
Bt see the reason why the non-binary etc stuff is an issue is because they made transgender no longer a mantel illness as they have other things. The problem is, they didn't take these things off the ls it because they found conclusive evidence showing they wee not mental illnesses. They took them off because of several other excuses that do nothing to solve the problem. Especially for suicides.

heck even before this gender thing became a big deal radical cities and communities were already taking down the institutions decades ago allowing people that need help to roam the streets and even be homeless.
 
Aug 24, 2016
924
240
255
Where have I courted Islam? their superstitions are no better than Christianity's, .
You forgot to respond to my post btw. You literally just seem to not know what a real christian is and I admit that's a big issue that needs to be fixed, creating more real christians instead of power hungry opportunists pretending to be ones.
 
May 4, 2005
11,419
653
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
You forgot to respond to my post btw. You literally just seem to not know what a real christian is and I admit that's a big issue that needs to be fixed, creating more real christians instead of power hungry opportunists pretending to be ones.
Sorry, I just forgot that you answered still yesterday, because it wasn't in my allerts yet. I do know what a real Christian is though: Everyone who believes in Yahweh and Jesus as his son.
1.
A. what do you mean?
Mary giving birth to Jesus as a virgin.
B. The Bible doesn't say this unless it's taken out of context. though I know people who say their are christians and say they understand the bible spread that teaching around sometimes without even reading the actual context.
What? Genesis is all about this.
C. I don't know what this means? Do you mean the flood? There's even actual evidence of a big flood a long period of time ago. Whether you beleiv the details of the story around the flood is a different story.
Yes, I mean the flood. There may have been floods, but nothing of the described scale during the time of humans on earth. Still, Yahweh is genocidal in that story.
D. I'm not following you on this one. Do you have an issue with the actual splitting of bread?
No, but it is bullshit that you can multiply the bread this way.
E. Media/Catholic/Apostolic/orthodox nonsense.
It's in the bible, explicitly.
F. Out of context by the same group above.
Genesis 2:22:
And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
(English standard version)
G. What do you mean? Are you talking about the flat earth thing? No where in the writings does it say the earth is flat. 4 corners of the earth is mentioned but it has nothing to do with flatness unless you take that quote out of context and put it in a vacuum
Job 28:24 " For he looks to the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens."
Daniel 4:10-11 "The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth "
Acts 1:8 "be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth "
Deuteronomy 28:64 "And the Lord will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other "
There is more, but it gets boring.
H. Must be some new thing that came out of nowhere because the dead are in the grave.
Jesus, after his death, before going to heaven.

2. Likely influenced by the same groups I mentioned before. Not real christians.
As per the definition above, real Christians indeed.

3. But again the question is it in the actual scriptures or is the Catholic church and others full of crap and made stuff up (See Easter and Mardi Gra)
Contraceptions are not in there, but the writings of Paul focus a lot on crude sexual policies.

4. Same groups i mentioned before.
Real Christians indeed. Of course, you can always claim "well, this is not true about Christianity, because I redefine Christians to be all Christians minus the ones that do say or believe the stuff you mention. But that is completely arbitrary.

5. Yeah same as the above. Gay Marriage is the only real thing here at least form how you presented it, but the only reason why we have gay marriage now instead of an alternative is because of politics and it only applies to marriage. A christian can unionize a same sex couple if they wanted to.
That's new to me and it is in crass contrast to "stone the man who has sex with a man" in the bible.

6. Likely influenced by the above groups. Europes taking the brunt of the centuries of lies and "changes". Just more fake Christians.
See above with your "fake Christians" stuff. This is unreasonable.

7. it's not big, that would require it to be much more widespread than it currently is. However, the topic of this point is again, the same usual groups.
It is a big movement within the Republicans and creationism has been supported by all but two republican presidency candidates last election (Trump & Bush did not). I mean, Ben Carson even is secretary now...

8. Keep in mind that some of Moses laws were of the time or of Moses and not of god hence why got had intervened later and clarified certain things people though were right were not and that Moses "let them do things" making them THINK it was right before the clarification. The only exception being that sleeping with men as a women (or beast) is against the nature of man which is technically scientifically true as well ) however the death penalty part was not from god.
The rules were, according to the bible, explicitly given by Yahweh. Some of them were later modified though, yes.

9. I'm don't think you read my post correctly.
I do not know what you want to tell me with that.
 
Mar 10, 2015
999
924
290
Austin, TX
Ummm we tried and the only thing that didnt lead to people killing themselves is reassignment surgery . i mean if you can find a way to stop it from happening i doubt anyone would complain but for the time being these people are here and should be allowed to live And i doubt a bunch of uneducated bigots "screaming we know your genetic code you cant hide" helps anyone?
This is simply not true. Reassignment surgery is not shown to reduce the rate of suicide among transgender individuals.

To the people calling for the moderators to decide, well, how do you expect them to do that, given the rules that appear to be being laid down here?

Let's take Ailynn as an example. I have no problem calling her "she", "her" and so on. I do not call into question that she's suffering from gender dysphoria in the way in which she describes. I feel empathy for her and wish I could click my fingers and magically fix things for her in one way or the other. But it's easy to say that, right?

But what if I suddenly said that I'm a woman and you must call me "she" and "her"? Who is to decide in that case, and on what criteria will they base their decisions?

These are the questions that leftists should have all the answers for, but they never do. They've got the "but muh transphobia!!!" shrieks down perfectly, but when it comes to nuance, complexity etc. - well, as always, they are fucked.
I don't think moderation should be involved at all. Ailynn has earned the vast majority of this community's respect for being earnest and someone that anyone with a brain can tell is genuinely interested in adding to the conversations and the community at large. I'll call her a her because she asked us to and has acted consistently to show themselves to be a genuine member of the community. Someone who shows up out of nowhere one day shitposting and accusing everyone of using their wrong pronouns won't get shit from this community in the way of respect because they haven't earned shit. Much like real life, people respond positively to earnest/genuine people and the vast majority of people are reasonable/kind and will act in reasonable/kind ways to those they perceive as earnest/genuine. It's really that simple. The tiny minority that will act like a jerk regardless are probably acting like a jerk to a lot of other people too, and it will work itself out.
 
Jan 13, 2018
217
90
180
>heritage foundation

my man what are you doing

Even if we granted the premise of that shitty article and agreed sex reassignment surgery only buys them an additional 15 years of comfort, that's definitely worth it in my book.
 
Last edited:
Mar 10, 2015
999
924
290
Austin, TX
>heritage foundation

my man what are you doing

Even if we granted the premise of that shitty article and agreed sex reassignment surgery only buys them an additional 15 years of comfort, that's definitely worth it in my book.
You are so ridiculously transparent. Spend 10 seconds on google to find whatever source you like, data is data even if you don't like the editorial that gets wrapped around it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031/
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

Bottom line is, there is no evidence that reassignment surgery addresses the root of the problem that is causing transgender individuals to kill themselves at rates that are a statistical anomaly in modern day society.
 
Jan 13, 2018
217
90
180
Your own source makes the claim that it helps alleviate it. Obviously things are more complicated than someone just getting a sex reassignment surgery and calling it quits for life but if it helps them live a longer and more fulfilled life what the fuck do you care? The swedish study is based on data collected between 1973 and 2003. Naturally medicine, therapy, societal views, overall acceptance of transgenders has come a long way since then. Your argument is flawed.
 
Aug 24, 2016
924
240
255
Sorry, I just forgot that you answered still yesterday, because it wasn't in my allerts yet. I do know what a real Christian is though: Everyone who believes in Yahweh and Jesus as his son.
Uh that's a small part of it but being Christian is to be "christ-like" and to follow the scriptures, which most chritians, especially in Europe, don't do.


Mary giving birth to Jesus as a virgin.
What? Genesis is all about this.
Yes, I mean the flood. There may have been floods, but nothing of the described scale during the time of humans on earth. Still, Yahweh is genocidal in that story.
No, but it is bullshit that you can multiply the bread this way.
It's in the bible, explicitly.
Genesis 2:22:
And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
(English standard version)
Job 28:24 " For he looks to the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens."
Daniel 4:10-11 "The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth "
Acts 1:8 "be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth "
Deuteronomy 28:64 "And the Lord will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other "
There is more, but it gets boring.
Jesus, after his death, before going to heaven.

As per the definition above, real Christians indeed.

Contraceptions are not in there, but the writings of Paul focus a lot on crude sexual policies.

Real Christians indeed. Of course, you can always claim "well, this is not true about Christianity, because I redefine Christians to be all Christians minus the ones that do say or believe the stuff you mention. But that is completely arbitrary.

That's new to me and it is in crass contrast to "stone the man who has sex with a man" in the bible.

See above with your "fake Christians" stuff. This is unreasonable.

It is a big movement within the Republicans and creationism has been supported by all but two republican presidency candidates last election (Trump & Bush did not). I mean, Ben Carson even is secretary now...

The rules were, according to the bible, explicitly given by Yahweh. Some of them were later modified though, yes.

I do not know what you want to tell me with that.
1. Historically several churches, especially Catholics later, have put too much important on mary, to the point where they even suggest praying through mary to communicate with god, and that she was blessed above other women, which all contradict the scriptures.

B. Genesis is about what? the world being created in 7 days? It's taken out of context. It contradicts other writings focused on same topic of god work.

D. I'm still not getting you. All he did was split the bread amongst the others at the table like you would do if you wanted to share bread. Unless you're saying he split bread and it formed new bread which isn't what happened.

E. Out of context. God did not form eve from the Rib. He made a female body then put the rib into Eve as both men and women were gods creation and he would add a part of Adam into even to have her be the same as Adan, a human, and then proceeded to make Even the bringer of life.

F. Even you should be able to tell those sentences mean nothing without context. Especially since the heavens are above the earth. Heck your daniel quote is impossible because no earthly thing can actually reach heaven. Again the it's not a read left to right thing. That's why context is important. Especially since most people haven't read the full bible in years since the early Catholic church influenced the "canon" of what books should be included.

G. Jesus did not walk amongst the living as a corpse after he died. For he was of the spirit at that time. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of god.

2. That definition is not in the gospels. In fact, the term Christian didn't even come FROM jesus, it was originally a term aimed at people who followed Jesus by people that didn't like jesus. Eventually it became a term they took on, however "Christianity" was never a term than as that was coined later for a completely different reason.

3. What examples are you thinking of specifically?

4. They are by definition of the Bible, not Christians. Things have been messed up so long few now what a Christian is actually supposed to be.

5. Contrast with what? Two men being unionized (outside the word marriage) and two men having sex are not the same thing. Also "stone the man who has sex with a man" as you say is not in the bible.

6. No it's not unreasonable, you just have no idea what a christian is because to many people have been given wrong information about what a christian is actually supposed to be. In fact, as i said, Christina didn't even originally come from Jesus. But eventually was adopted. However, Christianity as the religion you think of it was not a thing and was coined later. Also, I can't really blame you for thinking this as based on your other posts in other topic i'm assuming you're European and they've been having agendas and screwing with the book for years. In fact, some don't even read the book half the time just make stuff up. (doesn't help they have these theology courses and such based off those either.)

7. Ok but that doesn't mean it's big. If you actually look by state it's a small thing. Just because some people are in government on it doesn't amplify the actual number. That's not how this works.

8. A lot of them were modified, more than you think.

Again, there's a lot of work to be done. Especially in Europe, and yeah there's issues in the US as well, but half of what you're saying were never things at all and in some areas of the world aren't things and only thing in some parts of the world.
 
Mar 10, 2015
999
924
290
Austin, TX
Your own source makes the claim that it helps alleviate it. Obviously things are more complicated than someone just getting a sex reassignment surgery and calling it quits for life but if it helps them live a longer and more fulfilled life what the fuck do you care? The swedish study is based on data collected between 1973 and 2003. Naturally medicine, therapy, societal views, overall acceptance of transgenders has come a long way since then. Your argument is flawed.
You're arguing with a strawman. I never said reassignment surgery was bad or shouldn't happen. I'm merely correcting the poster who is claiming that it addresses whatever ills are associated with being transgender. It is clearly a much deeper problem than merely making one's body match one's mind.
 
Likes: RedVIper
May 4, 2005
11,419
653
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
D. I'm still not getting you. All he did was split the bread amongst the others at the table like you would do if you wanted to share bread. Unless you're saying he split bread and it formed new bread which isn't what happened.
Please read this:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+6&version=NIV


G. Jesus did not walk amongst the living as a corpse after he died. For he was of the spirit at that time. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of god.
This is not supported by the scripture.
That definition is not in the gospels.
I did not claim such. It is the only reasonable definition though.
4. They are by definition of the Bible, not Christians. Things have been messed up so long few now what a Christian is actually supposed to be.
Show me the definition of Christian in the bible.
8. A lot of them were modified, more than you think.
I've just read the book this year, I am pretty certain I am aware of the changes.
7. Ok but that doesn't mean it's big. If you actually look by state it's a small thing. Just because some people are in government on it doesn't amplify the actual number. That's not how this works.
It is a position a large amount of people in the US have and that is represented at the top of the ruling party. I'd say that is a big movement (of freaking idiots): https://news.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx 42% of US Americans in 2014. 42% deny evolution. That's lunacy. Dangerous lunacy.
 
Aug 24, 2016
924
240
255
Please read this:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+6&version=NIV



This is not supported by the scripture.

I did not claim such. It is the only reasonable definition though.

Show me the definition of Christian in the bible.

I've just read the book this year, I am pretty certain I am aware of the changes.

It is a position a large amount of people in the US have and that is represented at the top of the ruling party. I'd say that is a big movement (of freaking idiots): https://news.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx 42% of US Americans in 2014. 42% deny evolution. That's lunacy. Dangerous lunacy.

1. I don't get it. You're mad that he distributed bread?

2. Yes, the scripture says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god, yes it's supported by scripture. Also again it's not a left-to-right book. And quotes need context.

3. A definition not supported by scripture,

4. The definition is in the part where the word was first coined at Antioch. Reasons why half the churches are messed up is everyones either changing stuff or simplifying things.

5. You read the bible? Well you may not have understood it. Also you didn't read the whole thing since the modern Bible removes books out of "canon". it's not a left-to-right book either way. You can take a lot more out of context than what you had without paying attention, especially to the NT and its references.

6. Again it's not that big, and a lot of "polls' contradict each other. I would also point out that denying the theory of evolution doesn't automatically mean a person believes in creationism either.
 
Aug 24, 2016
924
240
255
You're arguing with a strawman. I never said reassignment surgery was bad or shouldn't happen. I'm merely correcting the poster who is claiming that it addresses whatever ills are associated with being transgender. It is clearly a much deeper problem than merely making one's body match one's mind.
Plus we also have to start wondering why the death reports are starting to contradict these "findings" that SRS actually works when the numbers continue to be higher YOY.
 
Oct 27, 2017
925
886
230
Moore Park Beach
Ummm we tried and the only thing that didnt lead to people killing themselves is reassignment surgery .

Do you have sources/studies that show this?
As far as I know, the studies that exist show that there is little to none difference in suicide rates between pre and post surgery groups.

Nevertheless, suicide is a real issue in these groups and something needs to be done about it.
No one wants people to commit suicide. It is never a solution.
 
Last edited:
Oct 1, 2006
2,450
1,865
1,080
But Twitter/Facebook haven’t captured the public square. There are plenty of other sources for people to recieve information.
This is not the argument. Twitter and Facebook are not about receiving information, but delivering it. They are monopolies, in that regard, for the average person to communicate on a mass scale.
 
Aug 25, 2018
269
243
210
Not directly related to the topic, but related to twitter. Shares dropped more than 8% today directly because conservatives are sick of their bias. https://thehill.com/policy/technolo...-fall-after-reports-of-a-conservative-boycott
I’m off the belief that a good portion of people find the overburdening, closed mindedness of the far left to be despicable but are too afraid to speak out.

It is difficult to speak against something that is righteous on the surface, even though the methods are rotten to the core. Because who doesn’t want equality and prosperity for all? The vast majority do, and the slightest criticism may make it look like you oppose it, which is nonsense.

Hopefully these sorts of pushbacks embolden people to finally say, enough is enough. Tear it down and do it properly.
 
Last edited:
Likes: NickFire
Jul 10, 2013
1,206
86
365
49
Mount Pleasant, SC
“We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanise, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category.




“This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.”
<Twitter has promised to permanently suspend any account which either breaks the rules too many times or is “engaging primarily in abusive behaviour.” >

Like in most cases it requires it to be intentional and continuous behavior.
Edit: wrong part sorry Edit2: added more to make it more clear
So... if I identify as an attack helicopter, does that mean I can shut down Twitter for assuming I'm a human?
 
Likes: CausticVenom
Apr 27, 2018
271
138
190
Lol ""virtue signaling" is. That what were calling basic human deceny now? Miss me with that bigot nonsense the same shit was said about gay marriage what gives you the right to decided who they are ignoring the fact your just being a rude piece of shit that information had no bearing on you in anyway . Dam it feels good to call out uneducated bigots.
I wouldn't call anyone a decent human being when they try to force a mentality on people they disagree with as "bigots", especially when the opposite is the case. Now surely I don't have to sugarcoat you by giving you the definition of what virtue signaling is, but what I can say for sure is the fact that the truth cannot be bigoted, and am slightly offended that anyone would call me such a thing when I've done nothing wrong and there are actual people out there who are trying to make transgender lives a nightmare. Shame on you for disrespecting the LGBT community that way.

You were called out for your irrational beliefs, and now you're angry and hyperbolic. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. What you and other people with a similar mentality don't understand, is that there isn't any bigotry in calling out transgenderism for its little flaws, whilst at the same time people like me believing that transgender people having a mental illness doesn't mean that they are unstable or shouldn't be allowed to join the military, or that I think transgender people shouldn't have the right to do whatever they want with their lives or even bodies, for that matter. That is the complete opposite case that I am making and you completely blew my argument out of proportion. Saying that transgender people aren't biologically the gender they want to be is NOT a bigoted implication that they shouldn't go through the process of transitioning, that they aren't convincing, or should be treated poorly. And, no, it's not the same thing as gay marriage nor am I even remotely similar to people who oppose homosexuality.
 
Last edited:
Oct 10, 2012
5,377
2,492
480
UK
theconclave.net
Political tantrums aside, he already ruined his legacy with his last 20 years of creative output.
No lies detected. I think a lot of it comes down to him seeing movies as a way to fund his various NY schemes, but yeah its hard to remember the last De Niro project where I gave a damn about him or thought he wasn't just dialling it in.


- Christianity is a religion that is optimised to spread, it is ingrained into christianity to distribute a large amount of unscientific, unbased factual claims. I cannot call it lying, because Christians tend to believe their outrageous claims, but let's call it bullshitting. Distributing obviously false stuff as truth is immoral from my perspective.
- On top of that, in Germany, the churches have schools, hospitals and kindergartens where the state pays almost the full expense, but the churches still claim special rights in terms of employment, e.g. they demand people who work there are members of the church, do not remarry, do not marry homosexually, cannot form unions and so on.
- Christianity stood in the way of science countless times and has been used as validation for war
- Christian belief is the best friend of deadly sexuall transmittable diseases particularly in Africa
- The churches put arbitrary restrictions, e.g. on sexuality, on their members
- The churches still are opposing scientific progress, e.g. in the case of genetic research. Particularly in Germany their influence is horribly large in that regard...
- Christian groups actively try to attack education with bullshit teachings such as intelligent design
- Christians like to cherrypick "Christian ethics", but if you look at the bible, it becomes very clear that you need to be very, veeery picky with Christian doctrine to get anything remotely resembling ethics.

I hope this are sufficiently many examples for you why I consider the church deeply immoral

Wow, way to show your ass there Yoshi. There is not one Christian Church. This idea you have that what you just posted is universal fare for all is the hottest of garbage. Maybe ease up on the hyperbole in future. As an Athiest, I'm embarrassed that you'd post that shitlist and expect it to pass muster.

 
Last edited:

BANGS

Fresh single BANGS in your area, or in my browser.
Dec 13, 2016
3,759
1,506
420
You are refusing to acknowledge who they have chosen to be... ...You are choosing to ignore who they are....
Yeah that's the problem right there...

This is hilarious, can't wait until twitter eats itself. Glad I've never had an account. I'd probably be banned for posting pictures of my daughter and calling her my daughter...
 
Last edited: