naraku360

I mean, I said at the beginning I'm not being argumentative and the whole fucking thread decided to ride my ass over it. Katt gave me an answer to my question, and I thought the answer was fine and moved on. I wanted to get more insight into Disco's points since I was more iffy on them, then it became naraku360 hates women and thinks they should just shut up. Not easily tilted these days, but ya know.....

77465865915894594583138848689578388 times?

How many times do I have to say the entire point was to get a better understanding before even 1 person gets that I'm having this conversation to understand better? 10? 50? A million?

So I'm not allowed to disagree because she's a woman?

Listening isn't the same as shuttng up and mindlessly agreeing.

I'M NOT FUCKING CHALLENGING PEOPLE. WTF GUYS.

I wasn't asking anyone to defend themselves....? Seriously, I was at work so I was asking for clarification since I didn't see the paper in the article and didn't have time to search for it. If you're going to make it an argument, you aren't going to get very far just repeatedly pointing out that men are being mean to you for asking clarifying questions. I wanted to understand your stance on it. That's not fucking telling you to shut up and it has nothing to do with my dangly bits. I don't know why the base assumption has to be that I don't respect you, nor why I have to be accused of sexism.... based 110% on my sex. At no point have I accused you of having wrong opinions for being a woman despite the dozen+ allegations of such, while you've repeatedly pointed to my sex as why I'm too stupid to "get it." You know damn well that's not my intention so quit accusing me of being sexist. And if you do, please point to direct examples where I'm clearly disregarding your opinion because you're a woman and don't act openly sexist in the process.

Why would you ever do that under any circumstances?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I was asking more or less for what you're describing. Or thought I was...? I mean, their conclusions are naturally going to need research. To what end I'm no expert. I just didn't see the paper linked there and was wanting to see what studies the looked at or performed and how it was utilized. But I didn't need anything terribly specific insofar as what kind of research, literally whatever paper the article is referencing was what I wanted to look at. This might also be an I dumbdumb situation.

Ah, I was on my 30th minute of my 15 minute break while typing. I didn't mean to. I thought I had to poop more than I did, okay?

I think he blocked me.... 🥺

The article mentioned a paper would be released at some point, which I'd imagine would deal with research into the impact of the terminology. The paper wasn't in any of the links and there wasn't much about the contents, though, so the article itself was primarily testimonial. That's not inherently bad or wrong, it's just not what I would be looking for to draw my own conclusions off.

By the way, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to get to the bottom of what stances people have

I'm only saying that the article linked doesn't give me enough info to base an opinion on. I explicitly said it could be correct. I just don't know one way or another if the research they did isn't public yet. It's not saying you're wrong. It's saying I can't really form an opinion without knowing how a conclusion was come to.

Okay, but what are they basing it on? If they have a legit paper with research and data coming out, cool. But if it's not out I can't analyze the reason for the statement before the paper is released. It's like saying 1+1=2 because you shouldn't look directly at the sun. Perhaps they have the right answer, but I'm putting emphasis on the how they got there rather than the conclusion itself. I can't replicate the process of the aforementioned math equation despite reaching a correct answer. I'm not contesting the article in premise, more specifically that at present I can't really look at the claim critically without knowing the process of the research or how it was applied to the answer.

This all sounds like conjecture. It isn't a matter of understanding or not understanding. We have the data backing trans mental health in relation to social ostracization, but on a cursory look (on a 15 minute break) it doesn't seem they have any data, like, at all to back the claim.

"Hang Mike Pence" = civil discourse @Ginguy Nut up, dude. This is so deeply pathetic that it's no longer even amusing. Have you coveted "civil conversation" or go fuck yourself. You don't get to play victim after bitching incessantly about how uncivil and unwilling to have a conversation the left is, then pop in and call people names and not even try to have the decency to engage in actual conversation. You're an absolute coward and should be ashamed of yourself.

Define harassment. Also, calling AOC "Alexandria Donkey Teeth" in Spanish seems pretty uncivil and probably deliberately racist.

Fucker Carl'sson?

When I say harmless, I mean the act of someone saying it rather than the bs Cucker Tarlson & friends narrative.

Kagome's dad is a stud.

Out of curiosity, what would you call a pregnant trans-man? I don't think "pregnant person" is a phrase that would generally be used for a cis-woman.

Does it really effect you if someone gets called a pregnant person? Despite being into progressive crowds, I literally have never heard someone use the phrase. I hear the right blow it up as if it's the end of the world, but it just seems like a non-issue. The point is broadly because transmen can sometimes get pregnant and have periods, and transwomen can as well (albeit rarer, since they would typically be interex assigned male at birth). It's like when gay people got the right to marry, did it reduce the rights of straight people to get married? No. Calling someone a "pregnant person" doesn't do much of anything. There are no legal ramifications for it, most people aren't going to bother saying it, and it includes people who aren't strictly born female who can get pregnant. Inclusion simply isn't the same as stripping rights. So, like, you don't have to. There just doesn't seem to be much reason to be upset over it. There are more important things to deal with, like abortions. The pregnant person "controversy" is all a distraction. It's harmless.

Anyone ever wonder how we survived once we evolved to the point where our babies began screaming for literally no reason? Like imagine you're the first monkey that pops out this baby that starts crying hysterically because it wants to shove its face in a fire after already realizing it doesn't like touching it, calling to all the monkey-eating creatures. Fucking dumbass babies were trying to abort themselves.