Democrat Introduces Bill To Protect LGB Youth from Medical Assault by BEB in LGBDropTheT

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

This is great news.

r/TrueGayMen banned for "promoting hate" 18 hours ago by NutterButterFlutter in LGBDropTheT

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

Lol. Can't wait for this, because sorry to say, women are letting these people walk all over us.

Using the word 'muggle' is now transphobic by JulienMayfair in LGBDropTheT

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

Stupid. Stay the fuck away from Harry Potter.

She married a man, then came out as lesbian when the man morphed into a half-man, half-woman? This is some quantum mechanics level complexity. by ukrdude10 in LGBDropTheT

[–]Doll 20 insightful - 10 fun20 insightful - 9 fun21 insightful - 10 fun -  (0 children)

Look, we all have downs and low points in life, but this is too much. What happened to just getting depressed and turning misanthropic like the rest of the folks?

Seems contradictory to me... by [deleted] in LGBDropTheT

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

Transsexualism is logically incoherent. This is why they had to abolish this term and use Transgenderism instead. Not only is it impossible to "transition" ones sex, but transsexualism denotes a lack of necessary attributes required to be X-sex. If X-sex lacks necessary attributes, it does not contain the material necessary to be X-sex. Transgenderism states that "gender is fluid and can be changed".

The is inconsistent with the sex essentialist claims of transsexualism, hence, why they had to choose one of the other. Either gender is "not fluid" and "fixed" only 'two sexes' can exist - thus transsexualism that augments themselves to adhere as closely as possible to the appropriate sex or gender is "fluid" and not fixed, thus no sex essentialism. But, if this were the case, a transition would not be required in the first place.

There is no interesting difference between "gender fluid" and "transgenderism", and the existence of these two also implies that Transsexualism does not exist. Which is false. The ACTUAL dysmorphic sex essentialist transsexuals have been silenced under the guise of faux "transgenderism". The correct term would be "Transsexualism" not transgenderism, but acknowledging that invalides all these unicorns, and in fact appeals directly to the facts. The facts that body idealism and genital subjectivism is conceptionally and logically incoherent and contradictory all across the board, and this fact makes a direct challenge realness of 'trans identity' at all. A direct appeal to a mind-based issue; not a physical one, and to acknowledge the realness of Transsexualism means also appealing to the fact it is so riddled with logical error and a host of inconsistencies, it is easier to just say, "whatever works works", and "whatever you feel like, sex does not exist" hence we are all unicorns while still nitpicking off sex essentialist viewpoints to ignore the reality of situation.

Transsexualism and transgenderism cannot coexist at the same time and both be logically consistent, because Transsexualism makes a direct appeal to sex essentialism while attempting to abolish it. These contradictions they attempted to avoid with "Transgenderism" but still shows as contradictory in action, because only transsexualism has the strongest argument, if any at all.

Transgenderism also challenges "Agenderism". If Agenderism and "gender neutral" exists, then transgenderism is incoherent and does not exist.

There is also no meaningful distinction between gender fluidity and "transgenderism and they like it this way in this hocus pocus of genital subjectivism.

P1: All males and females must contain all the necessary biological attributes to be 'male' and female'.

P2: All 'males' and 'females' contain the necessary biological attributes needed "to be" 'male' and female'.

P3: A male that lacks necessary attributes necessary for to be considered 'female' is not a female.

P4: A female that contains both necessary attributes of both 'female' and 'male' is neither male or female, but intersex. QED.


P1: "Transition" denotes passing of all necessary attributes from one to another.

P2: All necessary biological attributes are 'fixed' at birth.

P3: Biological attributes cannot be 'changed' without artificial intervention/frequent injections (i.e. lacks necessary attributes) or augmentation (mimicking), therefore static biological sex cannot 'change' if necessary attributes cannot transition.

P4: "Transsexualism" (and 'trans' - genderism) is therefore incoherent. QED.

What does it really mean to be non-binary? | Xtra Magazine 🤡 by [deleted] in LGBDropTheT

[–]Doll 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Pointless. I am girl. If I wear slacks and have a job, am I technically "non-binary". This is absolute insanity at it's finest.

Thoughts on Drag Queens & Drag Kings? by PeakingPeachEater in LGBDropTheT

[–]Doll 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I never had a problem with Drag. These people minded their business and enjoyed their lives. It's the extremist trans stuff that's on some other shit.

Reddit at it's shenanigans again. by Doll in LGBDropTheT

[–]Doll[S] 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Hahahaha.

I respectfully beg to differ by Chunkeeguy in LGBDropTheT

[–]Doll 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Ah, yes. Sounds just like something a female would say. /s

I can't wait until our new site is up. The wait is torture! 😩😩😩 by Gigababejfl in TruFemcels

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

Not only are the "sources" for my claims on this very thread and asserted by the creator herself (and myself - a mod); but what you find meaningful (i.e. having merit) is irrelevant to what is actually the case, which is the "sub" not being intended for debate purposes that diminish the quality of the website and distract from it's goal.

You appear lost, my friend. Your bizarre Dunning–Krugerian display is not even relevant to the discussion itself, because not only did you not apprehend or analyze my post, because if you did you would would've known I already covered this very comment in detail, but claiming that an owned webpage must accommodate and support content irrelevant to the sites intended purpose at the expense of quality and optimization for it's members is not only insane, but servers as an active demonstration as to why the site will operate as it will.

T*RFs are just jealous because my silicon milkshakes bring all the lesbians to the yard by Chunkeeguy in LGBDropTheT

[–]Doll 12 insightful - 4 fun12 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Who are they stealing? Straight women with underrepresented/understudied fetishes and kinks? I find mixed sex phenotypic expression and characteristics to be vomit inducing.

I can't wait until our new site is up. The wait is torture! 😩😩😩 by Gigababejfl in TruFemcels

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

Imagine making an ontological analogy completely irrelevant to the topic to justify debating opinions with people in a space that is not designed for debate. This is not a personal matter.

A constraint is not a restraint, and while you are free under your given biology to assert and express your ideas and opinions into a space not made for that purpose, you will deal with the consequences of having your content removed for it's lack of utility in so far as it does not optimize the discussion, nor does it optimize the well-being of participants. The freedom of speech argument is completely dubious insofar as freedom of speech does not entail lack of consequences or inaction to what is said; once you have said it you have already exercised your right to express, but if you are disallowed from participating you are not having your freedom of speech "removed" or "restricted" on the basis of you being male or a 'female with opposing opinions', but instead because these topics, opinions, and "ideas" are have no relevancy to the sub or website on the basis of it's intended purpose.

Just like 'boy scouts' and 'girl scouts' are not inherently restrictive nor misandric/misogynistic - nor speak to the overall utility of the individual or the merit they can supply if they participated. Utility to the sub is gauged by optimization of the content; anything that does not optimize damages the quality of discussion and content, and distresses the members and user distress, and what determines it, is irrelevant to whatever personal opinions of the opposing people are clearly making to encourage debate, it is considered counterproductive, not counterintuitive as you are attempting to make it seem.

How is r/TruFemcels hate speech, but literal incel subs aren't? by APersistenceofMemory in TruFemcels

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

Reddit is on low IQ shit ever since the new CEO took over. The admins are lazy and do not fact check. Do not analyze. Do not contextualize or put two and two together. Even Braincels was quarantined before it was nuked.

Hello, POC and black women of Saidit! by Doll in Introductions

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

It's still open! We're just on private, because we're being watched by people with no life.

I just canceled my Reddit premium account and became a Saidit Patreon. by NaughtyUnicorn in SaidIt

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

Good on you! Welcome to Saidit. I wouldn't even buy Reddit premium to begin with, but I'm in the useless platinum club that keeps sending me emails.

Hello, POC and black women of Saidit! by Doll in Introductions

[–]Doll[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks, Mr (or Ms). Edvin. ;-)

Hello, POC and black women of Saidit! by Doll in Introductions

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

Don't expose us, dammit.

Hello, POC and black women of Saidit! by Doll in Introductions

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

Thanks. I'm looking out! ;-)

Hello, POC and black women of Saidit! by Doll in Introductions

[–]Doll[S] 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Who cares, whoever sees it. Wasn't that deep or thought out.

Hello, POC and black women of Saidit! by Doll in Introductions

[–]Doll[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Feel free to sub and still stop by. We have other subs that are for men, too but are in the process of being made. And thanks!

Welcome to BlackGirlDiaries on SaidIt! Here is our sub FAQ! by Doll in BlackGirlDiaries

[–]Doll[S] 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Alright, thanks. I'll remove it.