We should probably go back to calling them 'transexuals'

submitted by SnowAssMan from self.GenderCriticalGuys

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]AcceleratedWallops 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Yeah, exactly. This person feels more comfortable if you call him "Nick", this person feels more comfortable if you call them "they."

See? Easy. Nothing to get your panties twisted about.

[–]EvilNick 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Exactly stop getting your panties in a bunch. I would call him Nick because it's easier. If he wanted me to only use Nicholas my friends and I would laugh at him and leave

[–]AcceleratedWallops 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Well I doubt Nicholas would be missing much.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I'm not a catholic, so I don't call a priest 'father'. I don't believe in gender spirits trapped in the wrong body, so I'm not going to call a man a woman. Simple. What you're looking for is a theocracy.

[–]EvilNick 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Is isn't odd rudeness and courtesy only seem to come from one side? Intolerant left.

[–]AcceleratedWallops 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's quite the leap you're making.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Not at all, in both examples I don't subscribe to the cult's beliefs, so their respective nomenclatures are irrelevant to me.

[–]AcceleratedWallops 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're likening referring to others by what they want to be called to organized religion.