Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Transgender rightsFollow

#502 Mar 21 2013 at 5:37 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,366 posts
Is this thread about Mindel's ****** yet?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#503 Mar 21 2013 at 5:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Joph likes big butts and cannot lie.


____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#504 Mar 21 2013 at 6:03 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
496 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The measurement of a man's manhood by the number of women he sleeps with is widespread. You, my friend are a tool to accept such definition. Furthermore, it is also widespread to define a person's *** by their genitalia. So, I guess you really don't have a problem with that either. So, what again is your problem?
I guess? But i've never encountered anyone who used the word "man" to refer only to people who have slept with at least x women. Certainly it's not uncommon for people to consider a man who has never had *** worthless, or something, but when someone just says the word "man", no one thinks they are only talking about someone who has slept with x number of women before. Maybe it's a regional thing though. So what word do you use for men who have not had *** (with a woman) before? Boy, i guess?

Edited, Mar 21st 2013 8:04pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#505 Mar 21 2013 at 6:13 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
So what word do you use for men who have not had *** (with a woman) before? Boy, i guess?

Edited, Mar 21st 2013 8:04pm by Rachel9


"Almalieque".
#506 Mar 21 2013 at 6:24 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Rachel wrote:
I guess? But i've never encountered anyone who used the word "man" to refer only to people who have slept with at least x women. Certainly it's not uncommon for people to consider a man who has never had *** worthless, or something, but when someone just says the word "man", no one thinks they are only talking about someone who has slept with x number of women before. Maybe it's a regional thing though. So what word do you use for men who have not had *** (with a woman) before? Boy, i guess?


So, it's settled. You have no issue with defining a *** by their genitalia, because it's widespread.
#507 Mar 21 2013 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
Almalieque wrote:

I suck at...


Best choice of words in a thread mostly about wieners? I think we have a winner!
#508 Mar 21 2013 at 6:34 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Torrence wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I suck at...


Best choice of words in a thread mostly about wieners? I think we have a winner!


Not sure why you would include "at".....

A swing and a miss....
#509 Mar 21 2013 at 6:35 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,366 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
So what word do you use for men who have not had *** (with a woman) before? Boy, i guess?

Edited, Mar 21st 2013 8:04pm by Rachel9


"Almalieque".

******* /thread Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#510 Mar 21 2013 at 7:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
496 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel wrote:
I guess? But i've never encountered anyone who used the word "man" to refer only to people who have slept with at least x women. Certainly it's not uncommon for people to consider a man who has never had *** worthless, or something, but when someone just says the word "man", no one thinks they are only talking about someone who has slept with x number of women before. Maybe it's a regional thing though. So what word do you use for men who have not had *** (with a woman) before? Boy, i guess?


So, it's settled. You have no issue with defining a *** by their genitalia, because it's widespread.
That's correct.
____________________________
#511 Mar 21 2013 at 7:09 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel wrote:
I guess? But i've never encountered anyone who used the word "man" to refer only to people who have slept with at least x women. Certainly it's not uncommon for people to consider a man who has never had *** worthless, or something, but when someone just says the word "man", no one thinks they are only talking about someone who has slept with x number of women before. Maybe it's a regional thing though. So what word do you use for men who have not had *** (with a woman) before? Boy, i guess?


So, it's settled. You have no issue with defining a *** by their genitalia, because it's widespread.
That's correct.


So WTF have you been arguing the contrary this whole time or would you like to expound on your problem?
#512 Mar 21 2013 at 7:32 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
496 posts
Quote:
Transgender rights
____________________________
#513 Mar 21 2013 at 7:56 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Almalieque The Most Awesome wrote:
So WTF have you been arguing the contrary this whole time or would you like to expound on your problem?


It sounds like you're upset because transgenders are being treated as their biological *** and not some random gender/*** that they want to be. However, you have stated that you support widespread definitions. In this situation, it is widespread to label a transgender as their biological *** and not what they want to be. So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?
#514 Mar 21 2013 at 8:17 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
496 posts
Quote:
some random gender/*** that they want to be.
Okay, so i was right, you don't understand the difference between gender and ***.

Unfortunately i don't know how to explain it to someone who doesn't already understand, so i'm not sure where we can go from here.

Edited, Mar 21st 2013 10:18pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#515 Mar 21 2013 at 8:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
some random gender/*** that they want to be.
Okay, so i was right, you don't understand the difference between gender and ***.

Unfortunately i don't know how to explain it to someone who doesn't already understand, so i'm not sure where we can go from here.

Edited, Mar 21st 2013 10:18pm by Rachel9


If you can't explain something to someone who doesn't already know what the thing is, you are a very bad explainer.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#516 Mar 21 2013 at 8:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
some random gender/*** that they want to be.
Okay, so i was right, you don't understand the difference between gender and ***.

Unfortunately i don't know how to explain it to someone who doesn't already understand, so i'm not sure where we can go from here.

Edited, Mar 21st 2013 10:18pm by Rachel9


If you can't explain something to someone who doesn't already know what the thing is, you are a very bad explainer.


It's Alma. It doesn't matter how good she is.
#517 Mar 21 2013 at 8:57 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
496 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
some random gender/*** that they want to be.
Okay, so i was right, you don't understand the difference between gender and ***.

Unfortunately i don't know how to explain it to someone who doesn't already understand, so i'm not sure where we can go from here.

If you can't explain something to someone who doesn't already know what the thing is, you are a very bad explainer.
Probably.
____________________________
#518 Mar 22 2013 at 3:50 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
If you can't explain something to someone who doesn't already know what the thing is, you are a very bad explainer.

I don't understand.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#519 Mar 22 2013 at 5:35 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
So I have to know what something is already before I can have it explained to me?
#520 Mar 22 2013 at 7:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,062 posts
Nadenu wrote:
So I have to know what something is already before I can have it explained to me?


I have a 100% success rate at explaining concepts to people who already understand them completely!

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#521 Mar 22 2013 at 12:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
What the **** is wrong with Arizona?

Link

The article wrote:
An Arizona state legislator wants to make it illegal for transgendered people to go to the bathroom. More accurately, the bill proposed by state Representative John Kavanagh would make it illegal to use public restrooms, dressing rooms, or locker rooms designated with the *** different from that on your birth certificate (which is inaccurate for most transgender people), an offense punishable by six months in jail. The bill’s vote was delayed yesterday after the committee meeting was disrupted by transgender activists and protestors, though Kavanagh said the delay was due to a “paperwork error.”

According to the AP, Kavanagh is worried that anti-discrimination protections for transgender people being passed around the country will “serve as a cover for pedophiles who want to expose themselves to children of the opposite gender.” And his proposed law will supposedly protect businesses from the economic threats posed by transgender rights, such as the cost of installing unisex bathrooms and lawsuits from people pretending to be transgender just to sue local restaurants.

“This law simply restores the law of society: Men are men and women are women,” he reportedly said. “For a handful of people to make everyone else uncomfortable just makes no sense.”

Assuming they actually feel uncomfortable. A transgender teen profiled by The New Yorker recently admitted there was “some awkwardness” about which bathroom he’d use after transitioning from female to male in ninth grade, “but when [he] started using the boys' rest rooms nobody said anything, and that was that.” If a bunch of high schoolers can handle it, surely the good patrons of Arizona's public restrooms can too.
#522 Mar 22 2013 at 12:36 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,900 posts
Belkira wrote:
What the @#%^ is wrong with Arizona?
It's Arizona.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#523 Mar 22 2013 at 1:19 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira wrote:
What the @#%^ is wrong with Arizona?
It's Arizona.
Sunstroke I guess.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#524 Mar 22 2013 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
What the @#%^ is wrong with Arizona?

They probably have dictionaries over there.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#525 Mar 22 2013 at 4:20 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
#526 Mar 22 2013 at 5:05 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
496 posts
Quote:
Nice attempt, but no cigar. I do know the difference, hence my intentional usage of the words. I used a "/" because what a person wants to be is irrelevant to the point of changing it.
Please explain what you mean. Because this makes no sense to me.
____________________________
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 52 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (52)