And SS will be rejected if it comes up also. What's the issue.
Transgender rights discussion
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
Are you saying every single person that identify as that is doing it because they are Nazis as well? Isn't it like BLM, people rejecting all the stigma attached with it but agreeing with the defined message/slogan?
It seems a bit like the "all lives matter" of sexuality.
Yes, this thing invented by nazis to splinter the LGBQT+ community, that apparently a bunch of absolute weapons are taking at face value, is like BLM. Totally.
Any and all of the dunces who looks at that and thinks "gee, i can get behind this" are at best transphobes. A normal, non-shit person wouldn't have the need for some special signifier to inform people that they're not really into trans people.
This literally just come out, not sure if the gender bit remains
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56338666
It wasn't though, it was invented by a kid on tiktok and 4chan seemed to latch onto it given its initials.
@starman what's your underlying point? Please finish this sentence; "if it gains enough traction to be brought up in discussions about sexuality as a viable choice then that would mean...?"
Because you're circling around your point more than seagulls over a plate of chips.
Because you're circling around your point more than seagulls over a plate of chips.
No I'm saying that it's so obvious what it is that if it was brought up as possible legislation it'd be rejected just like Jedi was for being fecking stupid.
Whats special about you that it needs to be rewritten for you? I have already made it, go reread it...
Did you? Where? Try pointing me in the right direction because I've not seen it. You're everywhere on this site posting incendiary stuff whilst jumping around never actually directly owning what you're posting.
You've moved on to diversionary tactics. You must think you're a genius. Poor you.
Yes, but then you yourself are making that argument for everything else outside of the tradition viewpoints around sexuality.
This is just trolling and shouldn't be allowed tbh. It's unfair to be expected to talk about serious topics with people who just wanna feck about.
I am sorry I didn't check in with you first around what is acceptable to discuss. Are you still mad i corrected your blatant lie?
you have 16k post ffs, i have less than half and have been here longer, iam sorry it offends you so much by me posting more than usual
Last edited:
Why are people not allowed to discuss these things? What i posted was on twitter when looking into the census, whats so horrible about that?
holy crap, THAT was you owning me in the Tom thread? When you corrected me and I thanked you for giving me the info? I seem to remember you calling me an idiot and trying to start a fight and I didn't bite and instead thanked you. You actually thought I was mad? fecking hell mate, you're genuinely worrying. I actually forgot about it until you just brought it up. Because, you know, I have a life outside of what happens for ten seconds on this site.I think I've figured you out, though. The point you're making is that a made up sexuality created for the sole extent of trying to make fun of other sexualities, and retweeted by a troll account that exists purely to make fun of other sexualities, shows that all societal views on sexuality are flawed.
It's genius. It's inspired. The whole Caf is in awe of your incredible debating skills.
Or, you know, playing devil's advocate just like you often do. You could also be a sad and lonely individual with an unfilled life. So you think you can somehow make up for your inadequacies by trying to start arguments on the internet with someone named after a fecking bird.
Are you sharing this because you support it? You don't seem to be making fun of it. Are you trolling?
What’s a Sasquatchromantic?
Go up and read it all, I cant be bother summarising to every poster that can't be bothered to read it and are just being selective. If it helps, when I fill out the cencus, no I will not be identifying as it.
I did read it, but there weren't many answers to be found. I understand why you might want to post the first tweet, but what was the point of the second?
A very funny joke made by very funny, incisive people after they get tired of saying they identify as an attack helicopter.
I thought they might’ve been taking the piss but there’s a few real ones in there so I wasn’t sure.
He's either a coward or a troll. Possibly both. He already said "super straight" was like BLM, so I'd wager that he thinks straight people who view trans people as icky are an oppressed minority.
I think that should tell you all you need to know about how those people feel about those real ones.
Just rambling.Marvelous, you're a modern day scholar. Now, wait. You're acting like a cnut.
I think I've figured you out, though. The point you're making is that a made up sexuality created for the sole extent of trying to make fun of other sexualities, and retweeted by a troll account that exists purely to make fun of other sexualities, shows that all societal views on sexuality are flawed.
It's genius. It's inspired. The whole Caf is in awe of your incredible debating skills.
Or, you know, playing devil's advocate just like you often do. You could also be a sad and lonely individual with an unfilled life. So you think you can somehow make up for your inadequacies by trying to start arguments on the internet with someone named after a fecking bird.
We all read it. That should give you a hint that you just suck at explaining and should probably do a better job.
It's actually quite concise and articulate. I know it's probably difficult for you to get your little head around because it's not a meme you can repost on your Facebook page.
That or, you know, you can't think of a decent response so you can "own" me again, or whatever it is you think you're doing to.folk here.
I have already explained there's a bit in the Census of self identification and this is what people are identifying as.
Okay, but could you please explain what the thinking was behind posting that second tweet, with the "list of sexualities"? It didn't seem to be adding anything to your broader point.
I just saw 'cnut' then a wall of text, and thought, hmm if I write that, I get banned. Not the self-righteous enlightened scout
I'm not a scout. You're a cnut.
Thanks. Anything else?
First time I’ve ever wished the Caf had upvoting.
Saying someone is acting like a cnut isn't the same as calling someone a cnut. You should know this. And you were acting like a cnut. You're hostile and call people idiots (THAT, by the way, is an infraction).
But let's not get off track here. I know you'd prefer to move on to the "victim" phase of the daily troll but let's get this question answered first, aye?
Yes, people are writing this in the census, and that can (or could have) lead to "super straight" becoming a recognised sexual orientation that would be protected under law. People have been trying to sus out what you were getting at, and all you've given is an explanation of a process. Okay, cool. Was that all, or did you have an opinion on it?
I guess you did put in that bit about the Super Straight movement being like BLM, but that's pretty vague.
That's a weird way to spell classical liberal. Works, though.
OK, one last time, if you go to twitter and look at #Census2021, you see people talking about identification, some people are identifying as European rather than British for example, then I saw the superstraight stuff and as someone pointed out it was created on the the 6th and died out, but this was not true as Andrew Doyle posted about it today and people are starting to put it down as their identification.
Thanks for the loophole tips
Is my reading comprehension really this bad, or is it yours? This isn't what I'm asking about. I'm asking why you felt the need to share this tweet:
How does that add to your point about the census?
Because thats the tweet he posted today and he made more people aware of it, I mean is this not literally a thread about transphobia?