Reactionary Radical Eliminationists vs. Trans

I read the thread to the end, there was nothing of you "making your stance on trans people clear," just your usual cartoon poo flinging tantrums.

So we've gone from "you didn't post" to "I deem your posts unworthy. "
Get your fucking story straight, bullshitter.

It really does depend what the phrase is, and who the person is.
Hitler advocated non-smoking; smoking causes cancer, so that's a good idea.
No one screams "Nazi!!" when the "no smoking" symbol comes up at the movie theater when the flick starts.
"White replacement" was invented by the Klan, and spread by the skinheads.
It wasn't co-opted, like Pepe, it came right from the sewer.
It's a fake-ass conspiracy, and no one good has advocated for it.
There's no innocent innocuous form of that.

Nice that you try everything within your strength to wiggle free, so you can keep spouting your supremacist talking points.
It's kind of an admission you have nothing without them.

Oh look, you're putting words in my mouth now. What a surprise.

Your arguments have already been invalidated, sport. What people are pointing out now is that those arguments are suspiciously similar to the arguments made by bad actors you claim to not support. You're pulling a Federal Farmer, claiming to be this independent free thinker while somehow sounding exactly like a brainwashed talk radio/YouTube podcast/Fox News listener. If you had any sort of self awareness, that kind of thing would give you pause.

If you think I missed a gem, link right to it.
Here's how, slowpoke.
Look under the text of your post.
See your name? See next to your name, the time of when you posted?
Hover over that with the finger, right click, "copy link address".
Link me straight to the gem. Destroy me.
Destroy me with your intellectual power.
You can do it!

*Rereads again*
Oh wait, from 7-9 you regurgitated Matt Walsh lies.
Yes, that shit was really clear.
And torn to shreds by Turk, Doc, and Nova.
Especially Nova.

-ing it away isn't a valid debate tactic, Al.

See how easy?

http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3454470/

Now you're just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Replacement theory? Fuck's sake.

Dismissal is not invalidation. Attacking the source is not refutation. And you accomplish nothing by attributing to me things I haven't said.

"11 year olds are being held down and castrated!" is so much better.
yourself. Ass.

Hey, agreeing juveniles shouldn't be castrated is progress, sport.

"And they're not!"

Right, and of course that's because there's no interest in trying, not because it's not allowed.

Really? The "the Jews only haven't eaten our babies because the laws don't allow it yet" argument?
Sure you wanna make that chess move? ..y'know? Go right ahead.

Right to the nazi shit. Tacit admission of defeat.

And fundie Muslim!

If the keffiyeh fits....

So what are you saying, that 16 year olds should get boob jobs?

I mean, good for your cousin? While I usually enjoy a good personal anecdote that may or may not be true, I have to say you are coming off as being quite blasé about minors getting surgery

I think she's saying that the outrage over transgender minors receiving elective medical care is highly selective and hypocritical considering the lack of outcry over cosmetic surgeries for cis minors that have been going on probably as long as cosmetic surgery has been a thing.

I would add that every argument for banning such care pretty much falls apart when the same people trying to ban it openly reject the idea of such bans being extended to cis people.

This is a valid discussion point if, as a society, we accept that there are certain rules surrounding age limits (e.g., voting, drivers licenses, military service, drinking age... not to mention laws about pedophilia).

We can debate whether 18 is the right age to vote or whether 21 makes sense as a drinking age, or 16 is the age where you should be allowed to drive a car. Objectively speaking, it's all fairly nonsensical and apparently arbitrary.

But for argument's sake, let's say that society accepts that the age when you become an independent adult is 18, meaning that anything before that age requires parental consent.

If we accept that, then no... 16 years cannot and should not get boob jobs without the permission of their parents.

But legislating anything other than that in the context of age limits just reeks of homophobia and/or transphobia.

Well yeah, I think that's been clearly defined quite well in this thread. I even pointed out the hypocrisy of it in my post, that vote is an absolute joke

Now we get to hear how it's child abuse for the parents to refuse that permission.

That's how the internet works.
You can always log off if you only want to hear the echoes inside your skull.

As opposed to the echoes inside your colon that inform your own position.

Assuming you're worthy of my rectal gases is further symptom of your grandiose narcissism.

/thread

Why are you so confident ranting about things you so clearly know almost nothing about?

I would think that "what I'm saying" is blindingly obvious.

If your reading comprehension is that bad, an explanation probably won't serve any purpose.

Uncle Albert is...

A: Wrong
B: A poopie head
C: Both A and B
D: Baba
E: All of the above

Your fantasy wish magic doesn't count as knowledge.

Congratulations on going "full retard," I guess?

Yep. It's all in my imagination.

https://news.northwestern.edu/stori...surgery-in-new-international-guidelines/?fj=1