you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]LtGreenCo 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

Of all the adjectives one can use to describe a man who likes to dress in drag, straight is like at the bottom of the list. So yeah you may like women, but you're still a faggot.

[–]QueenBread[S] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

That's actually the same idiotic, regressive way of thinking that TRAs have. I often read so many comments here that match exactly the way of thinking these incel troons have, that I wonder why y'all don't support them.

No, dress and lipstick don't make you a faggot nor do they make you into a woman.

[–]Godknight 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

Wrong faggot.

[–]QueenBread[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

So, how about you join the gender cult? "If you have short hair and wear pants you're a man; if you have long hair and wear a skirt you're a woman". So ridiculous!

[–]LtGreenCo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

It's more like "if you are a man, then you should dress as men do" and vice versa.

All cultures have gendered dress standards to some degree, and societies have evolved that way because the visual delineation between men and women has always been socially significant and important. Now, do I think such social norms should be upheld by force of law? Of course not. But I do think some modicum of social pressure is due in order to reinforce useful distinctions between men and women.

[–]QueenBread[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Your dumb social pressure is what started this bullshit TRAs movement in the first place. If people didn't give a fuck if men wore dresses and women had short hair, we wouldn't be in this predicament.

[–]LtGreenCo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

If that were the case then we would've had the TRA movement 100+ years ago and it would've happened to all cultures, not just Westernized cultures. So no, this "predicament" isn't because of social pressure. It's merely the symptom of a political and cultural sickness that has manifested only recently.

If this TRA nonsense is proof of anything, it's proof that when you forcefully expunge well-established social norms and force the culture to accommodate fringe identities then everything goes to shit.

[–]QueenBread[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

If that were the case then we would've had the TRA movement 100+ years ago

We did, we absolutely did.

Forcing gender roles, claiming that real ladies must be dainty and wear pretty skirts, claiming that real men must be gruff and ape-ish, claiming that gay people can be converted, having men that get off on crossdressing..... it's nothing new. Tale as old as humanity.

[–]LtGreenCo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Doubtful. The people of the distant past had bigger things to worry about than "Oh noes!1! I can't be my true self!". Let's be real, if that's your biggest issue in life then you probably have it relatively good. This is a first world problem and one day, when the shit really hits the fan, people will drop this identify oppression narrative like it never existed.

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

There's a guy I follow on YouTube, named RealityCheckSA.

He's a young black guy in South Africa interviewing residents on woke American issues. Most of the residents want nothing to do with this woke stuff.

In Japan and China, the woke left has a name: Baizou. Japan is currently very happy with their vetting system and homogenous culture.

All around the world people are in shock of the horrors they are seeing in America.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, it means you have it awful, and other people have it even more awful. Just admit that the world is inherently a terrible place.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most of the other cultures already bought into the gender stuff millennia ago. It was the originally-egalitarian Christian cultures that didn't succumb to it.

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

Or maybe men should just dress like men. Then we'd also not have this 'predicament'. As the Bible warned us 4 thousand years ago.

[–]QueenBread[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You're following the rules of a fictional book written 4 thousands of years ago. 'Nuff said.

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

Yup and people back then knew what a woman was. You people always underestimate the intelligence of ancient civilizations.

Just follow the science guys.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

People back then also threw people to be torn apart by wild animals for fun.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's also not actually a rule

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, because women wearing battle armor for pagan rituals is the same as them wearing pants out of preference.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How is it useful, other than helping to preserve pointless traditions?

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

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

    Lol. Fuck off breeder.

    Thanks for the compliment