I'm here because I have opinions the left doesn't like.

submitted by [deleted] from self.Introductions

[deleted]

top 100 commentsshow all 105
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]King_Brutus 31 insightful - 6 fun31 insightful - 5 fun32 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

Welcome! Certainly quite the range of opinions here and it's refreshing seeing them all mesh together.

Your eugenics stance is interesting. Immoral implies that morality is tied explicitly to genetics and without the genetic predisposition for crime that crime itself would not exist.

In my opinion at it's core, eugenics is a good idea. Pass on the best genes. The implementation and practicality is typically what makes people disagree with it. Who gets to decide who breeds with who? And does that not go against free will to an extent?

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Morality isn't tied to genetics, it's objective. However, if a genetic mutation promotes a certain behavior (like murder) and that individual breeds, the gene will be passed down. Without any checks, before you know it everyone's killing each other. If you implement a check, that doesn't mean people won't commit murder (there are still environmental factors) but they'll be less likely to have that gene.

I believe in semi-free will. Basically, you can make your own choices, but your genetics and raising inclines you towards certain choices. Someone with, say, a murder gene can resist the urge to murder, and someone without the gene can choose to murder. However, it's more likely that the former will commit the act than the latter.

[–]missdaisycan 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

However, if a genetic mutation promotes a certain behavior (like murder) and that individual breeds, the gene will be passed down. Without any checks, before you know it everyone's killing each other. If you implement a check, that doesn't mean people won't commit murder (there are still environmental factors) but they'll be less likely to have that gene.

Just for fun, as I LOVE stirring people up, does your theory include XY - the Y mutation? XYs perform violence in a percentage higher than their percentage of total population.

(Have popcorn, am watching.)😀

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The XYY mutation is not hereditary, thus not applicable to this situation.

[–]Lahontan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Honestly the crime thing being passed down through generations, this is a Nurture thing. No evidence I know supports Nature in a tendency toward crime. I heard a story from a prison guard that an inmate wrote a letter to his mother explaining how he was trying to get out of the gang he was part of. The man's mother wrote back to him that she was disowning him for that. Also fathers and sons in the same prison wearing chambray blue.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If a gene mutates that promotes violence, it will be passed down. And the chances of such happening are quite high. I would need scientific proof before lobbying for any regulations, but it does make logical sense. Yes, nurture is a factor, likely much more than genetics, however, genetics does play a role in how one nurtures a child.

[–]twam 30 insightful - 4 fun30 insightful - 3 fun31 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

Honestly, about eugenics... who are we to determine what's immoral? If eugenics was implemented when "being black" or "being gay" or "being trans" was still considered a mental illness or something, your parents would have been sterilized - you're trans (I'm assuming, for the sake of the argument)! Whatever we determine "wrong", if we use eugenics to suppress it, we'll end up on the wrong side of history.

And... seriously? CHAZ is a communist terrorist movement? What?

Also, China isn't actually communist. It's a capitalist country with some social programs. It's also authoritarian, and THAT is its problem.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

We already determine that things like stealing and murder are illegal. So I see little difference. I'm not an Anarchist, so I believe that we need a strong government to enforce the law and keep its citizens safe.

CHAZ was formed by Communist terrorists. They illegally seized and occupied both public and private property, declared secession, and began beating people who disagree with them half to death. They even killed two people. There was widespread crime, including theft and extortion. They committed treason against the United States by attempting to violently form a new country. They struck fear into the hearts of millions when their crimes where opened up for the world to see. They worship Karl Marx and other Communist "intellectuals". It is a Communist terrorist movement.

Pretending like China isn't Communist is an attempt by the left to normalize it. Who owns most industry in China? The government. It's Communist. And pretending like you can have Communism without Authoritarianism is another lie the left tells. Every socialist state has been a totalitarian dictatorship, or at the very least became one within 10 years.

[–]twam 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Here's the difference: Eugenics can have a far larger effect. What if we got rid of a group that we considered undesirable (such as autistic people), but later it turned out they weren't? Or we killed people subject to a condition that we thought was genetic but wasn't? We would ruin a lot of lives for no good reason. Additionally, eugenics, while not inherently racist, is a tool that can be easily used to justify racism. I'd argue that deciding who reproduces and who doesn't isn't something that the government should be able to do, because of all possible abuse.

Additionally, the main difference is that theft and murder are things that you do. Eugenics is based on who you are. We can decide what deeds are good and bad to SOME extent, but we can't decide what people are good or bad.

I'm just saying that CHAZ isn't actually a serious threat to anything in America. I'm not contradicting anything that you're saying.

That's because nobody likes socialism. The only way to have a government that nobody likes it to make it authoritarian. If the majority of the world just gave socialism a chance (like they did in Europe), it would work out.

[–]SaidOverRed 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You need to understand that eugenics does not involve killing people. Also a huge portion of the political left likes socialism, globally or even in anti-socialist america. Look at the stats on college grads. They vote too, you know.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You have a concept of eugenics that was created by anti-eugnenicists to demonize it. It does not have to involve sterilizing anyone, or aborting anyone. For example it could simply be government aid programs for young couples who are determined to have highly desirable traits on the condition that they have a certain amount of kids. By encouraging good genes to spread faster society would benefit. It could also include invitro fertilization of willing parents with preferred embryos. Many people would jump at the chance to have children with better genes than they have. They would be yours in every sense, but with better genes. There are thousands of infertile people who don't want to adopt because they might end up with a shitty kid. They would pay anything to get their own kid, from birth, with guaranteed good genes.

[–]Calliope 29 insightful - 4 fun29 insightful - 3 fun30 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not a southern nationalist by any means being a Yankee lol, but I'm interested in history and have been thinking lately that destroying monuments is going too far. I agree museums could be a good compromise... though I moved to a southern state recently and the way things were displayed in a local museum left a bad taste in my mouth. I'd prefer history to be presented in a neutral manner. I don't think anything should be glossed over or forgotten though. I don't think I'm somehow better or worse than anybody else related to who I'm descended from because humans all over have messed up things in their histories. I'm glad to have a new platform like Saidit because nuance in arguments is dying on the Internet.

I think both capitalism and Communism end up failing due to human greed. I'm frustrated with the problems of capitalism in America but I'm not sure what the alternative should be. With how much COVID-19 is showing the problems with our government that were already there, I'm hoping positive changes are coming.

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I agree entirely. You moved down south, and since you ain't a carpetbagger, you could be a southerner if you choose to assimilate. I've known plenty of people who moved from other states (especially from California) and assimilated into the culture. They might not have been born here, but they're southerners alright.

Corporatism and Distributism are two alternatives. I'm somewhere in between the two. During these hard times we need class cooperation, not class conflict.

[–]quickbeam 29 insightful - 4 fun29 insightful - 3 fun30 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

I probably disagree with you on nearly everything. However, welcome to the platform! It's honestly fantastic to be an adult who is okay with hearing opinions they disagree with and knowing that the platform isn't going to come in and yank them off.

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I always love having people around who disagree with me. That's how you learn. You can't learn if no one dares to say anything the elite disagree with.

[–]StaresBlankly 20 insightful - 21 fun20 insightful - 20 fun21 insightful - 21 fun -  (24 children)

You say you are a transgender woman but have you relied on the politically correct establishments that you apparently know to be corrupt to confirm that diagnosis? After all, the American Psychological Association controls the DSM-5 and the World Health Organization controls the ICD.

Taking into consideration the massive increase in people who identify as transgender over the last decade, has it occurred to you that your own diagnosis might have been based on research that was influenced by political thought?

Whether one believes in a conspiratorial reason for the increase or an environmental reason for the increase or just gross incompetence by those who are blinded by their politically correct beliefs for the increase, it would appear there is flaw in the methods leading to all of these diagnoses.

[–][deleted]  (22 children)

[deleted]

    [–]twam 27 insightful - 20 fun27 insightful - 19 fun28 insightful - 20 fun -  (1 child)

    Um... no. None of those things are trans things. You're just a really feminine cis guy.

    [–]jet199 23 insightful - 22 fun23 insightful - 21 fun24 insightful - 22 fun -  (1 child)

    Yet 20 years ago if you'd had done all that and lived your life the same way you wouldn't have called yourself transgender. The whole idea has been created recently and you sucked it up.

    [–][deleted] 16 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Probably not, but it's good to have terms to describe things. It's not my defining trait or anything, and I'd rather just be a "woman" rather than "transwoman", but people still categorize each other into cis and trans.

    [–]adultxhumanxfemale 13 insightful - 15 fun13 insightful - 14 fun14 insightful - 15 fun -  (5 children)

    I'm transgender because I like wearing feminine clothes, wearing makeup, acting feminine, having long hair, etc.

    You do realize that gender non-conforming women exist, yes? You can't throw on a dress and lipstick and stake a claim on womanhood. It's insulting as fuck having men reduce the entire god damned sex to this reductionist stereotype.

    But assuming you didn't intend to post this on r/writingprompts and got confused...

    You're either a gay man in drag or you suffer from autogynephilia and the myriad of psychological disorders that often accompany the fetish.

    [–][deleted] 17 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

    I would question the womanhood of women who don't follow gender norms. They have the right to do so, but they shouldn't get mad when people refer to them as men.

    I'm romantically interested in women, actually, not men. Sexually, I'm abstinent.

    [–]lmaonope333 9 insightful - 11 fun9 insightful - 10 fun10 insightful - 11 fun -  (2 children)

    you throw on a dress and heels and you think you're more of a woman than someone with an actual female reproductive system. a woman is an adult human female. not an adult who wears dresses. get over yourself.

    [–][deleted] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    What does reproductive organs have to do with how you dress, your pronouns, your name, etc?

    [–]lmaonope333 6 insightful - 10 fun6 insightful - 9 fun7 insightful - 10 fun -  (0 children)

    it doesn't. I have female reproductive organs so no matter how I dress act or or feel, I'm always a woman.

    [–]Tovasshi 8 insightful - 10 fun8 insightful - 9 fun9 insightful - 10 fun -  (3 children)

    That's called being a transvestite.

    [–][deleted] 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    Who says transvestite anymore? lol

    [–]Tovasshi 8 insightful - 7 fun8 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 7 fun -  (1 child)

    Transvestites and most of the English speaking world.

    [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    I've never heard anyone below the age of 60 use that word.

    [–]lmaonope333 5 insightful - 9 fun5 insightful - 8 fun6 insightful - 9 fun -  (4 children)

    but why cant you just be a feminine man?

    [–][deleted] 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    I prefer feminine pronouns and names and socially interact as a woman. I'm biologically male, but I don't know if that counts, lol.

    [–]lmaonope333 5 insightful - 9 fun5 insightful - 8 fun6 insightful - 9 fun -  (2 children)

    what does it mean to socially interact as a woman?

    [–][deleted] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    There are certain ways women act, dress, etc. and how others perceive them.

    [–]lmaonope333 7 insightful - 11 fun7 insightful - 10 fun8 insightful - 11 fun -  (0 children)

    basically stereotypes. you're reducing females to stereotypes

    [–]Realwoman 2 insightful - 11 fun2 insightful - 10 fun3 insightful - 11 fun -  (1 child)

    Do you get turned on while doing that?

    [–][deleted] 12 insightful - 7 fun12 insightful - 6 fun13 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

    No, not at all.

    [–]Canbot 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

    There is a lot of research showing that men have lost a lot of testosterone compared to older generations. If you could be "cured" of transgenderism by taking testosterone supplements would you do it?

    [–]SaidOverRed 18 insightful - 9 fun18 insightful - 8 fun19 insightful - 9 fun -  (0 children)

    This. I agree with everything else he is saying. So what, he's got a problem. If he aint out there screaming in my face when I say he's a he not a 'she', then I see him as a great individual with one flaw. Everyone has flaws. And if he wants to stick with this one, that's up to him. But good luck getting the left to agree with everything else he believes. Deep down, he's a more conservative and therefore he is welcome to join us.

    [–][deleted] 18 insightful - 7 fun18 insightful - 6 fun19 insightful - 7 fun -  (16 children)

    I'm a transgender woman, but oppose political correctness adamantly

    Then you're perfectly fine with me calling you a man, and treating you like a man? I would assume so, as someone that supports eugenics must understand that chromosomes are not interchangeable.

    I'm sorry for your mental illness. Out of curiosity have you tried to treat it? Check T-levels? Statistics show that 98% of transgender teens "grow out of it" by 25. Are you fully mature? Anecdotally based on people I've known - what most "transwomen" want is to be pretty and desirable. Unfortunately the efforts of modern witch doctor "treatments" with female hormones and mutilating plastic surgeries have quite the opposite effect. Worse they are strung along and led to believe this will be the outcome of their long term torture. Instead the outcome is generally suicide.

    [–][deleted] 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

    You can call me whatever you want, and I won't be offended. You have rights. Though I would prefer that in social contexts I'm treated as a woman. In regards to sex, I'm male and that's how I want it to be treated. Chromosomes ain't got no'n to do with how I dress or behave, but they do have biological implications.

    That's why I generally support separating gender and sex, since a transwoman still has male biology and a transman still has female biology, but they have the right to dress, behave, and set forth preferred manners of address. No one, however, should be required to address someone in a manner they believe to be appropriate.

    I don't want to be pretty or desirable. I want to be a good person. Materialism has made people obsessed with appearance and sex, a byproduct of Capitalism and Socialism. I pass as a woman, but it doesn't matter to me what folks think about how I look. If I'm ugly, so what? This obsession with making other people like how you look is what drives people to suicide, both cis and trans (though, as you pointed out, more prominent in the latter). It's rather degrading, as well, as you make yourself into a product to be sold to others. I'm not going to be a product.

    [–][deleted] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

    Although the evidence is strong that gender dysphoria is developmental/epigenetic rather than genetic in nature, if evidence were to arise that it's basis is genetic (as schizophrenia, etc.) - would you support eugenic abortions of predisposed children?

    If the answer is no, which mental illnesses other than gender dysphoria do you consider acceptable in the gene pool?

    [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

    If it was proven to be genetic and furthermore proven to be particularly damaging to society in every case, then I would quite likely support the move. If it becomes evident that some cases are damaging while others are not, following a predictable pattern, I would support selectively preventing the damaging cases. If it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I would not support such measures.

    Certain genetic conditions can be allowed so long as they aren't damaging to society. Furthermore, I would prefer to focus on the most damaging cases at first and deal with the fine-tuning later on in the process.

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    A logical answer. I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand where you're coming from.

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Thanks, you too!

    [–]BettysBitterButter 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    proven to be particularly damaging to society in every case

    So... no eugenics for any diseases, then, I guess. WTH is "particularly damaging to society in every case"? Even something like CF would not fairly meet that criteria. Sickle cell wouldn't meet it. Even schizophrenia wouldn't meet it.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    Schizophrenia and other genetic diseases are always damaging.

    Edit: Schizophrenia isn't genetic, but BettysBitterButter claimed it was so I included it in my argument.

    [–]Realwoman 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Schizophrenia isn't genetic. It has a genetic component but even though most schizophrenics don't have children, the percentage in the population stays stable. It can also be controlled with medication.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    The person I was responding too said it was, so I just included it in my argument. I'll edit in a disclaimer though.

    [–]Realwoman 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

    I hope you don't go to women's bathrooms and you don't call women terfs

    [–][deleted]  (5 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]Realwoman 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

      Haha, great, do you also tell them to suck your girl dick?

      Do you have a problem with gender critical feminists?

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]Realwoman 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

        So you don't support free speech, if you're part of the mob harassing feminists

        [–]Realwoman 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        Haha, great, do you also tell them to suck your girl dick?

        Do you have a problem with gender critical feminists?

        [–]Realwoman 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

        So what are your non right wing views?

        [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

        Disclaimer: not wanting to debate about the beliefs, just answering your question.

        I believe in Huey Long's economic reforms, which would limit wealth and income to prevent the elite from gaining too much power. I also believe in universal healthcare, but through cooperatives and tax credits, not socialized medicine (which is socialist). I support LGBT rights, of course, though disagree with how the left has used it as a tool. Mostly economic stuff.

        [–]Realwoman 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

        What the heck is universal healthcare through cooperatives and tax credits?

        [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

        Everyone gets a tax credit to spend on healthcare, and health insurance companies will be owned by their members.

        [–]Realwoman 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

        Got it, so the person who has cancer and can't work gets the same tax credit as the healthy person that only needs flu shots. Sounds fair and not broken at all /s

        [–]mikipika 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (25 children)

        How does one "breed out immoral behavior?"

        [–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

        Don't allow imbreds, pedophiles, and serially-violent criminals to reproduce. You can penalize it, sterilize offenders, etc

        [–]C3P0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

        So eugenics? A problem is that pedophilia is not a trait like blonde hair. Anyone, especially those with similar life experiences, could become a pedophile.

        [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

        I said I support eugenics, yes. Some people become pedophiles for genetic reasons, but many don't. If there is proof of a pedophile gene, then I would support eugenics measures. I support the death penalty anyways, though, so it ideally wouldn't ever need to be applied.

        [–]C3P0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        I didn't read all of your comments, so I am sorry I missed where you said you support it.

        I don't believe such a gene exists. We are talking about human decisions--not genes. Similarly, there is no "gay"-gene. I could be gay for a day then never do it again. There is some dubious pseudoscience out there that says gay people have different brain scans. That's not real proof though.

        Maybe there is a gene that carries a tendency to become a pedophile, a homosexual, a conservative, etc.

        [–]C3P0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        (Maybe the same gene that makes one tend to have a certain malevolent behavior also carries a tendency to create geniuses or immunity to some diseases.)

        load more comments (1 reply)

          [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

          Do you support the death penalty for non offending pedophiles? Isn't that punishing thought crime?

          [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

          You actually have to commit a crime to be punished for it. That should be obvious.

          [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

          It's not because a lot of people support finding and killing pedos, a la witch hunts.

          If you support sterilization based on pedo genes, that may not be death, but it's still punishing thought crime. Steralizing convicted pedos is not really considered eugenics, it's more like corporal punishment. And it's usually castration that is advocated for.

          [–]Realwoman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

          I thought you're pro life

          [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

          In my post I said with exceptions.

          [–]Realwoman 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

          Haha, how do the exceptions make any sense? Why are you pro life? You believe in the sanctity of life but only the lives that you deem worthwhile? You don't believe in women's rights?

          And how is society going to be better if women are forced to have children they don't want? What if they drink during pregnancy in protest? And the fathers are often deadbeats, how will it help society for women to carry the babies of deadbeats and assholes? Why let irresponsible men spread their seed? And why force couples to have children before they're ready? So that they can destroy their relationship with an unplanned child and let that child become a child of divorce with parents that are not financially and/or emotionally stable yet? And that will benefit society how exactly?

          [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

          The problem is not the child of an irresponsible parent, but an irresponsible parent who has a child.

          [–]Realwoman 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

          You're so inconsistent. So if an irresponsible parent gets pregnant or gets someone pregnant, the mother can actually decide not to become a parent by having an abortion but you want to deny her that right because reasons?

          I admit, your views are a special type of abhorrent. It's rare to see someone that wants to both stop some women from having abortions and force some other women to have them. You are obviously a man that treats women as incubators, not as human beings with rights. But oh wait, you're a "transwoman" because you like to wear clothes associated with women in our culture. You have no idea what being a woman is like. You're just a misogynist.

          And please, stay out of women's bathrooms and locker rooms. You don't belong there.

          [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

          Liberals just want to lower birth rates of certain groups that don't vote for them. Your kind doesn't belong in this country.

          [–]Realwoman 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

          Haha, wtf are you talking about? I'm trying to use your twisted logic. Also, I support abortion rights worldwide, not just in the US, for every woman that wants to terminate her pregnancy. I'm a regular donor for charities that help women with abortions worldwide.

          What is my kind exactly?

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

          So you are against socialism and advocate fascism?

          [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          Fascism is a political ideology, not an economic one. It's a racist belief that can apply to Capitalism, Socialism, and Alternative economic ideologies. I'm not racist, so I don't support Fascism. I'm somewhere between Corporatism and Distributism.

          [–]Nona_Biba 9 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

          You support eugenics? And you're a trans woman? You realize people like you are the "undesirables" right? I hope you've lived up to your ideals and have neutered yourself already.

          AND you're pro-life? Something tells me you get off on controlling women (REAL women) more than anything else....

          [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          If it becomes evident that society would be better off without transfolk, then sure. I'm already abstinent for various unrelated reasons.

          Studies have shown that women are more likely to be pro-life than men. And preventing someone from killing another human being is completely justified. Controlling? Yes. But we need hierarchy, order, security, and justice. Anarchism/Libertarianism just doesn't work.

          [–]SaidOverRed 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

          Even if you are right, which I'm not convinced of, so what? If he's white, then leftists already say that about him. He might as well put his lot in with those who will listen and won't mob him for saying something that isn't woke.

          [–]Tom_Bombadil 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

          I'm also pro-life (with exceptions) and support Eugenics. The left thinks it's racist, but there's nothing racist about wanting to breed-out genetic conditions and immoral behavior.

          So... what if they want to breed-out transgenders?

          [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

          Who are "they"? Perhaps they are wrong, and perhaps they are right, but I would hope that in either case they make an informed decision based upon science and fact. If it becomes evident that society would be better off without transfolk, so be it, however, I don't believe there to be a genetic component in every case of transgenderism.

          [–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

          I don't believe there to be a genetic component in every case of transgenderism.

          That's interesting.

          If you don't believe there's a genetic component to being transgender, then are you making a personal choice to identify as transgender?

          [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

          I believe there is a genetic component sometimes, but not every time. I do believe that at times it's a choice, yes. You can choose to behave a certain way, and as long as they ain't hurting nobody you're free to do so.

          [–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

          Are choosing to be transgender, or biologically predispositioned?

          [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

          Am I? I don't know. I would lead towards it being a choice, since I'm not as obsessive or sensitive as most. Or maybe that's just cause I'm southern, lol.

          [–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

          You're obsessive enough to bring it up in the title of your debut post; coupled with eugenics, etc.

          I think there's about a 1:20 chance that the jist of what you're claiming is true.

          It's a mediocre trolling.

          [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

          Am I just supposed to never bring it up? lmao

          [–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

          It doesn't seem like a relevant detail to most discussion.

          [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          In most discussion, but I was talking about the left, and since the left uses transwomen as a weapon, it was very relevant.

          [–]URSAL 3 insightful - 9 fun3 insightful - 8 fun4 insightful - 9 fun -  (1 child)

          Lmfao thanks for confirming everything I believed about trans people. Get fucked little Autogynephile

          [–][deleted] 14 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

          I'm surprised you believed trans people are pro-life, usually it's the opposite. I'm not an Autogynephile, as that would require me to actually want to have sex, which I don't. But okay.

          [–][deleted]  (1 child)

          [deleted]

            [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

            Exactly!

            [–][deleted]  (1 child)

            [deleted]

              [–][deleted] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

              Neoliberals pretend to know everything about LGBT folk even though that in reality they don't have a clue. Transfolk don't get offended by this stuff, only straight liberals do.