How sure are you of your beliefs?

levoyageur718293 · 2022-11-20T22:06:54+00:00

I don't think any of that matters. For the sake of argument, I'd be prepared to concede that there is such a thing as a "proprioceptive blueprint:"

a mental sense that a person has about how their body is "supposed to" look and be shaped,
which does have a physical presence in the brain and could be discerned in unconscious people or even corpses with sufficient instruments,
and that some people have a proprioceptive blueprint that is wildly different from how their body actually developed,
EDIT: and one example of this mismatch might be in the realm of the body's sex differentiation,
and that this mis-match causes them acute anxiety,
and that we might consider medical intervention to make their body match their proprioceptic blueprint.

None of this means that males who suffer from a mismatch based on sex organs should be allowed into the female preserve. That's an entirely separate question, it is a sociological question, and it has nothing to do with medicine.

levoyageur718293 · 2022-11-14T23:52:34+00:00

It's the height of megalomania to try and control how other people talk about you. If I identify as being beautiful, are you failing to respect my Identity by saying that you think I'm not?

levoyageur718293 · 2022-11-10T19:27:36+00:00

I'm not interested in pretending I believe something I don't, no matter how much it makes someone happy. There are higher things than happiness.

levoyageur718293 · 2022-08-04T06:57:32+00:00

Two years later, and Mardoll is in big trouble. Haha!

levoyageur718293 · 2022-07-26T07:40:26+00:00

I'm sorry it took me so long to reply to this, I don't check Saiddit very often. But here is my answer in short: by moving between groups on the basis of their archetypal characters, you are reinforcing the association with those archetypal characters, which is ultimately harmful to everyone.

My go-to example for this is astrology. Everyone has a birthday, which is based on objective fact. The state of heavenly bodies at the time of one's birth - one's "sign" is also an objective fact. But the archetypal characters we associate with people born under different signs - people born under Aries are assertive and impetuous, people born under Libra are cautious and patient - are arbitrary and negative. Imagine if a person was born under Aries, but was cautious and patient and had all the archetypal characteristics of a person born under Libra. If such a person were distressed by the mis-matched, they might try to re-cast their birthday and legally change it so they were born in October, under Libra. They might also try to separate the archetype from the birthdate, saying that, for instance, "Libra" refers to all people who feel an affinity with its archetype, regardless of the time of their birth.

Both of these things would be bad, because both of them reinforce the idea that these archetypes are real, that they resound throughout the universe, and that most people adhere to them - that Libras really are a certain way, that Aries really are a certain way, and if you don't match with the others under your sign, you need to book it and detach from them and re-attach to the people you're supposed to be among.

If it's astrology, it's a little bit silly and we can all acknowledge it. But when it comes to groups that marginalize each other and are in class hierarchies, it's really shitty. If you're a member of a low-status group, then by trying to escape it because you don't like the pejorative opinions that the high-status group hold of you, you're essentially validating those opinions. Imagine a gay man who was definitely homosexual, in the sense that he only desired sex and love with other men, but who hated all the ephemera of gay culture and didn't want to be associated with the swishy queens, so he cooked up a new schema for himself - "gay" was any man who was swishy, in terms of mannerisms and presentation, and "straight" was any man who was manly, in those same terms. Under that schema, he could escape from being associated with the swishy queens, which I suppose would make him happy in the short term, and this schema theoretically allows swishy heterosexual men to buy into being gay, with all the cachet that possesses. But by refusing to fight the stereotype of the swishy queen, he's harming all homosexual men - including himself - by suggesting that they must or ought to fall into a set of stereotypes unless they specifically exclude themselves from it.

Maybe some swishy queens would like this; their swishyness is more important to them than their homosexuality, and they'd rather make common cause with swishy straights than with fellow homosexuals. But I think most of them would realize that being swishy is incidental to being gay, and would recognize that this attempt to jump ship is harming their collective position by chopping it up.

levoyageur718293 · 2022-07-07T01:36:07+00:00

Whether it benefits you personally is neither here nor there. By transitioning, you're committing a wrongdoing against either the group you're trying to enter or the group you're trying to leave, or possibly both - for all the reasons that normally apply to this kind of chicanery, that you would recognize if it was any other group. You cannot seek out self-improvement at the expense of others.

levoyageur718293 · 2022-07-06T04:08:37+00:00

The explanation that I've heard - I don't agree with this, because I'm GC, but this is what I've heard - is that transracial is different because you can only rightfully identify as something that one of your hypothetical siblings could actually be. Since you could have a sibling of the opposite sex, you can identify as the opposite sex, but since you couldn't have a sibling of a different nationality, you can't identify as a different nationality. It has to be something you could get from your parents.

Of course, when I explained that this meant anyone could identify as "gay" without being homosexual, and that indeed that's what "spicy straight" is, I was told that I was debating in bad faith.

levoyageur718293 · 2022-07-06T04:02:05+00:00

That would be an unbelievably pathetic and shameful thing to do. As a male, you are a member of the Male Army. Maybe you're a low-ranking member of it, maybe you get shit on by the officers, maybe your life is a constant parade of misery, maybe you wish the whole thing would fall apart - doesn't matter. You're still part of the Male Army, and you're on the conquering end rather than the conquered end, and you can't ever take off your uniform. You can oppose the Male Army, you can join forces with its victims to fight against it, you can work within the system to try and change the Male Army's policies, you can repudiate everything the Male Army stands for... but you can't ever actually leave it, any more than you can leave the White Army or the Straight Army if you're members of those. You may hate us and oppose us - in fact, you should oppose us, because we're the bad guys - but you can never leave us.

levoyageur718293 · 2021-11-14T19:20:09+00:00

Anecdotally, I have seen a male dog sodomize another male dog, but it wasn't reciprocated.

levoyageur718293 · 2021-11-09T18:12:08+00:00

A "mother" is someone who mothers, or who has mothered and wants to still be identified by it. If you've never been responsible for a child (be that through the performance of care or through nurturing it with your body), then you have quite simply never mothered and thus are not a mother.

To translate it to "woman" suggests that a woman is someone who womans or who performs the act of woman-ing, which can only mean stereotypes.

levoyageur718293 · 2021-07-14T17:31:42+00:00

Let us assume that there is a person who exists in this world, who has given birth or is obviously capable of it, who asserts: "I am a gay woman, meaning I am only into women, I am into penises but not into men, so I would consider a trans-woman as a potential partner."

Now let us assume that there is a person who exists in this world, who has given birth or is obviously capable of it, who asserts: "I am a gay woman, meaning I am only into women, I am only into people whose genitals are similar to my own, so I would not consider a trans-woman as a potential partner."

Is it really helpful to use the same word as an umbrella-term to cover both of their sexual and intimate desires? What extra information or utility does that provide?

levoyageur718293 · 2021-07-08T15:40:54+00:00

I miss the fact.that we actually got QT showing up to roll with us. Out here, we're mostly just talking to each other.

levoyageur718293 · 2021-06-23T14:43:47+00:00

A unicycle has one wheel and a bicycle has two. If you take one wheel off a bicycle, it doesn't turn into a unicycle, it's just a broken bicycle. If you graft a second wheel onto a unicycle somewhere, it doesn't turn into a bicycle, it's just a unicycle with some odd decor. Can you define the difference between a bicycle and a unicycle?

levoyageur718293 · 2021-06-07T23:46:41+00:00

Let us imagine: You and I are both immortal space-entities who watch the world and humanity. You're Uatu the Watcher, and I'm your colleage Egma the Watcher. One day, we're watching a maternity ward in a large, prestigious hospital. As we watch a brand-new mother joyously cradle her minutes-old baby, you mention that you also observed the mother being some thirty-odd years prior. Thus inspired, I make you a bet. You get to pick ten babies born in the hospital that day. For each one that gives birth during its life, I'll give you three hundred quatloos. For each one that doesn't, you'll owe me three hundred quatloos. One could buy a lot of nice stuff with three hundred quatloos, and you could bag as many as three thousand.

Is there perhaps no word that would describe the babies you choose? They're all going to have something in common, aren't they? You tell us what you want to call it.

levoyageur718293 · 2021-05-31T14:16:28+00:00

A human being has only three potential reproductive capacities. Either they can produce - can now, have been able to in the past, or are equipped to do so in the future - sperm, they can produce eggs, or they can produce neither. A person who can produce sperm is male and a person who can produce eggs is female, full stop. As for the neithers, in 99% of cases it's medically obvious which one they would be able to produce if they were healthy, and in 99% of the last 1% it's obvious with sufficient study. The number of people whose sex is legitimately indeterminate is a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

levoyageur718293 · 2021-05-16T00:24:49+00:00

So what it seems like is that there has to be, at baseline, an idea that there is such a thing as "boy" and "girl" and that those characters must be tied to the physical body, even if it's done incorrectly.

levoyageur718293 · 2021-05-15T05:32:07+00:00

Okay, but then why do 5 and 7 make the cut?

levoyageur718293 · 2021-05-13T20:08:12+00:00

Five and seven? Why them, and not 8?

levoyageur718293 · 2021-05-03T21:35:01+00:00

The consequence of that belief is that if a person passes well enough as a matter of disguise, regardless of their intention in doing so, then you'd have to accept them as the sex as which they're portraying themselves - and furthermore, that they'd stop being that sex once they take off the disguise, or if it fails.

levoyageur718293 · 2021-05-03T21:32:24+00:00

Sex is not a spectrum because there's only two reproductive functions - either you produce the egg, or you fertilize the egg with sperm. That leaves us with only four hypothetical possibilities - a person can do one, the other, both, or neither. We can discount the last option, because nobody in the history of the world has ever been able to do both and it's not even possible to conceive of how they hypothetically could. So that leaves us with three choices. People who can do one or the other are obviously a member of one sex or the other, so that's easy enough.

That leaves us with option four - people who can do neither. But even in those cases, it's obvious which one they can't do, or rather, which one their body is deficient at doing. By way of analogy, lungs and livers are different organs, but we can take a nonfunctional organ - we can even take a little tiny sample of its tissue - and we can see whether it's "supposed to be" a lung or a liver. Thanks to medical science, it's easy for us to analyze down to even the smallest details and discern which one a person "isn't."

levoyageur718293 · 2021-05-03T21:20:15+00:00

COINing means "Co-Opting Intersex Narratives." The fact that we struggle to discern some people's sex - not that those people don't have a sex, as the article posted by u/BiologyIsReal pointed out, but that their sex is sometimes hard to discern - doesn't actually help TRA arguments, but they like to pretend that it does. The argument they make usually goes something like this: * A woman is still a woman without a uterus/vagina/ovaries * Therefore a person without a uterus/vagina/ovaries can be a woman * Therefore TWAW. (Yes, yes, I know...)

But I wanted to put that sort of thing aside right out of the gate. We're not dealing with XXY or guevedoce, we're dealing with people whose sex is unambiguous.

Since the TRA argument, as I've encountered it, is that trans means "gender other than assigned gender" and "assigned gender" means "what you were raised as," rather than something to do with the body, it means that their argument should have room for someone "female but cis-nonbinary," or for someone who was "female but not raised as a girl," and therefore "female but transwoman." I think any TRA who was confronted with this possibility would reject it, even though it's a logical consequence of their position, and they'd have to say what they believe but don't want to say - that yes, there is such a thing as male and female, but they only want it to count when it's convenient for them.

levoyageur718293 · 2021-05-02T06:59:46+00:00

This article is brilliant, thank you for sharing it!

levoyageur718293 · 2021-05-02T06:59:25+00:00

I take a great deal of delight in engaging with you, MarkTwainiac; I like the fact that you challenge me to do better.

In your description of your debate it seems that you and the person you are arguing with are equating biology with female fertility and childbearing capacity. So in that sense it seems you definitely are taking a reductionist view, albeit not a bio essentialist one. But rather a mat essentialist one that says women = mother, and a particular kind of mother at that. The view you're advancing seems to be that to be a woman a human has to be able to release viable eggs, get pregnant, carry a pregnancy to term, give birth vaginally and breastfeed.

None of these things are necessary, certainly, but I find that QT loves to hedge around at the corners of biology - clownfish, Mullerian ducts, XXY, that sort of thing - and I figured that it was best to close those lines of inquiry categorically. A woman can be a woman without doing any of those things, or even having the opportunity to do those things, but when the rubber hits the road and the baby comes out, all that COINing falls away instantly.

levoyageur718293 · 2021-03-28T16:39:43+00:00

"Female" - the category of person whose assertion of being a transwoman would be considered invasive and appropriative.

levoyageur718293 · 2021-03-01T05:20:27+00:00

It's a hyperbolic assertion; I figured that if I started from a QT position and followed it as logically as I could to a conclusion that QT would disagree with, then that would demonstrate the weakness of that initial position. This is my response to trans narratives that follow the basic line Philosophy Tube put down, saying something like, "when I was born the doctors said "It's a boy," but then I grew up and realized I was supposed to be a girl, so I'm trans" - which papers over the reality of the body, aka why the doctors said "it's a boy" and the reality of the sexed body. I've also heard from QT types that the commonality of transwoman is "raised as a boy," or vice-versa, which this hyperbole challenges - because I think QT would, if pressed, say that being raised as non-binary and "transitioning" to the gender that matches your sex doesn't rightfully put you in the ranks of the people who transitioned to a gender that doesn't.

If, as QT asserts, genitals are completely unimportant to gender, and "transgender" means "a gender other than you were assigned at birth," then it follows from those presuppositions that a child who was raised as a theybie - a child who was raised in a completely gender-neutral way, effectively being brought up nonbinary - would by definition have to "transition" to either binary gender, and there would be no consistent way to exclude such a person from the ranks of "transwomanhood" unless the people trying to exclude her were courageous enough to say bluntly, "transwoman means you were born with a dick," and that there are two meaningfully discrete classes - people who were born with dicks and people who were born with vaginas, aka what we GC types would call "men and women."

levoyageur718293 · 2021-03-01T02:21:22+00:00

Yeah, I did not do my best work in writing my original post, I can own that.

levoyageur718293 · 2021-03-01T00:52:10+00:00

If there's a better definition of QT than that, I've never heard it.

levoyageur718293 · 2021-03-01T00:50:23+00:00

In the non-QT way of looking at it, sure. But in the QT schema, doesn't the parents' imposition of a nonbinary gender necessarily mean that she grew up to be transgender?

levoyageur718293 · 2021-03-01T00:48:41+00:00

I think I heard the phrase "from the breast" in a Robert Graves novel, that seems like the sort of thing that he would write. I wanted to go about my theme obliquely, perhaps too obliquely, by saying "this person is unambiguously female" without actually using the words "female," "girl," or "woman."

In any case, I'm not suggesting that - or not trying to suggest that - this person had no awareness of sex before the moment this person gave birth. My attempt was to go along with my understanding of QT that bodily sex is unimportant and only the transcendental "gender identity" matters; therefore, a person who was brought up in a gender-free environment, or who was effectively brought up nonbinary, and later chose to identify with a binary gender would therefore be "transgender" regardless of which way they went. Since this is obviously not a conclusion that QT would want to draw, my Socratic goal was to screw an admission out of someone that bodily sex represents a meaningful class.

levoyageur718293 · 2021-03-01T00:40:28+00:00

Why not? Her "assumed gender" or "imposed gender" would be nonbinary, so by recategorizing herself to "woman," wouldn't she thus be transitioning and thus be a "trans woman?"

levoyageur718293 · 2021-01-16T17:31:06+00:00

A funny bit of rhetorical jiu-jitsu just occurred to me. You could indeed have women only spaces under intersectional calculus, but you'd have to name it backwards - you'd start by making it a space for the female sex, regardless of gender identity, but then assert that since the class of men marginalizes the class of women, no men (trans men, aka tifs) are allowed in it. The result would be the same, but because of how you've sliced it, it should satisfy woke policing.

I mean, it wouldn't, of course, because tims want everything, but they would have no rhetorical grounds to oppose.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-11-18T19:12:56+00:00

I would like to consider myself a straight ally, but my main interest is GC and I lurk in the shadows here as a complement to GC. Trans infiltration ruins everything, but I think we can agree that lesbians are at the absolute ground zero.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-09-24T19:25:12+00:00

Nobody knows. I don't think anyone's actually met him.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-09-14T18:54:37+00:00

Because the sex categories not only include members who can actually perform the reproductive role, but also those who have a facsimile of it - they either could in the past, reasonably will be able to in the future, or are clearly deficient in performing it. I like to invoke an old Soviet joke to make the situation plain.

A man walks into a butcher's shop and sees that all its shelves are empty. He says to the clerk, "are you completely out of meat?" "No," says the clerk, "this is a bakery and we're completely out of bread. The butcher's shop is next door, they're the ones who are completely out of meat."

Sex functions exactly the same way in humans as it does in other mammals, and while there are words for castrated males and words for spayed females, there has never been a word that applied to both of them equally. An ox is never a cow. Why do you think that is?

levoyageur718293 · 2020-08-29T20:54:31+00:00

Holy mackerel, "an outcry" looks terrible. The Bundle For Racial Justice had a lot of naval-gazing gender garbage like that, too.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-08-29T20:40:46+00:00

Your analysis is brilliant and insightful! Thank you for sharing it.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-08-21T19:48:48+00:00

This is the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU1J9DiQzDw

Smellerbee is obviously supposed to be an unattractive girl who's dressed "as a boy" because boys are the ones who generally go on rad rebel adventures, so anything that's for adventurers is "for boys." You hear that voice for one second, and it's obvious. Iroh didn't "misgender" her because he's not woke enough, he confused her for a boy because in his mind a girl would look more girly and pretty. Her little conversation with her friend after was about reminding her that being a girl is no impediment to being a rad adventuring freedom-fighter.

Of course, even in-universe, "Smellerbee" is a stupid name for anyone, but there's like a hundred named characters in ATLA so the writers get a pass on this one.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-08-21T19:31:34+00:00

Ooh, what happened there?

levoyageur718293 · 2020-08-18T20:23:19+00:00

I've said it before and I'll say it again - in every culture that had them, "third gender" was synonymous with "f-ggot."

levoyageur718293 · 2020-08-18T20:18:55+00:00

Dang, that's even better.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-08-18T07:26:02+00:00

"Femininity" and "Masculinity" are memes that, at various times in various ways, have been useful to the most powerful members of society. The quintessential masculine male is stoic, hard-working, and brave - perfect traits for an underclass of workers and soldiers. The quintessential feminine female has the perfect set of traits to be a further-underclass, a slave-of-slaves who will compliantly serve the men who serve the masters. It all ultimately comes from reproductive strategy.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-08-18T07:21:18+00:00

Shortly before I created a new username to participate in gender critical on Reddit, I'd been on a deep wiki dive about ice hockey and French Canada. The "voyageur" thing stuck.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-08-11T06:34:40+00:00

Ehh, nobody said anything when I did this same thing but for St. Lucia...

levoyageur718293 · 2020-08-05T18:42:08+00:00

Sometimes one thinks of the bathroom thing as "two separate spaces," but that isn't really true to their purpose. In the beginning, all public facilities were unisex, but women campaigned for and received the right to their own bathrooms to protect them from men. Since all women immediately switched to using women's facilities, the old bathrooms became the de-facto men's bathrooms, but that's not how it worked originally and that's not the best way to understand them. Anyway, trans men aren't a threat to natal men, so I'm all for it. It doesn't change the calculus of danger for anyone except the person making the choice.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-08-05T18:38:38+00:00

They're both subsets of "good-looking," but they carry the shadow-meaning of "looking like you should." So beautiful means "looking like a good-looking woman," and handsome means "looking like a good-looking man."

You can say "she's a handsome woman," but that's more of a quotation than a real phrase, and in practice it means "she's holding on to her looks pretty well despite her age."

levoyageur718293 · 2020-08-02T10:06:40+00:00

LGB, of course, because they have a collective interest, and everybody has a right to their own interests. We all want the best for people in wheelchairs, for instance, but being in a wheelchair has nothing to do with LGB.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-07-31T21:25:45+00:00

If nonbinary is valid, then there would only be two people in the entire world who are binary, since everyone else would necessarily be on a spectrum between them. Otherwise, you'd have to draw an arbitrary line between "non-binary" and "not non-binary enough to be non-binary."

levoyageur718293 · 2020-07-30T21:13:12+00:00

Part of being a parent is that you've got to bring your A-game for your kids, and that means pushing down your own problems to focus on theirs. Personally, I have never met a trans person who was was well enough to be like, "regardless of my own business, I need to be 100% on the ball for someone else right now."

levoyageur718293 · 2020-07-30T21:10:32+00:00

It's because gender conformity is kind of shit. Both genders were designed by patriarchal authority to be useful to them when embodied in their subjects. Manly men are obedient to the demands of the group, stoically throwing themselves into war & work for the benefit of their masters, while womanly women are obedient to the demands of their menfolk, creating a sub-class that keeps the manly men happy and obedient to their own masters. It's a bad game for everyone.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-07-26T00:45:55+00:00

And the show was so promising until then...

levoyageur718293 · 2020-07-20T21:35:50+00:00

Interesting detail, though: at the bottom left, it says "do not identify with [this gender] if you are neurotypical, support b/p lesbians, are panphobic or invalidate self-diagnosis." If b/p means bi-/pan, is this a schism in their ranks?

levoyageur718293 · 2020-07-20T09:08:15+00:00

Mardoll has a lot of physical disabilities that prevent her from holding down a normal job or participating in offline society, so I guess she's stuck inside her own head.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-07-20T09:06:03+00:00

I've had to use transgender pronouns in online spaces in order to hide my GC bonafides, but that's to keep up my cover. I have thus far avoided actually speaking to anyone who demands "they," and I think it's the absolute height of arrogance. I'll use "they" in circumstances where the subject is unknown - "someone left their bike here" - but I've never had to use it as a sex-neutral. As for full-on neopronouns, if you you get to make them up to refer to your neogender, then I get to make one up to show that I'm a higher social class than you.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-07-19T04:40:08+00:00

This is excellent! How long did it take to make?

levoyageur718293 · 2020-07-18T20:03:36+00:00

What does it mean in this context? That's the only line I don't get.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-07-18T19:58:37+00:00

RFdebatesMRA would be a fun and noble adventure, but I crave the original recipe.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-07-18T05:50:17+00:00

Oh nay. Mardoll is deadly serious.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-07-18T05:47:36+00:00

AFAIK, Ana Mardoll's pushing 40.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-07-17T09:59:31+00:00

I think it is a principle of TRA that whatever you call the actual sex categories - whatever word you come up with to replace what we know as "man" and "woman" - the TRAs consider that category unimportant. Names notwithstanding, they want the vast majority of women to be complacent in gender identity so that male TRAs can infiltrate them. If everyone were actually enlightened, the way they claim to want, there'd be no passing and thus no infiltration.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-07-15T19:08:58+00:00

Then what do you want to call natal female people who call themselves "trans men?" I legit don't understand what you're getting at.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-07-15T10:44:11+00:00

What that would mean, therefore, is that an ordinary man - a man with a penis, testicles, Adam's apple, healthy sperm, and multiple children he got from having sex with women - was just as much a "trans man" as Buck Angel. What's the point of counting things that way?

This isn't an argument you can solve with a dictionary or with these kinds of thought experiments.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-07-15T08:42:04+00:00

Q1) No, because we clearly need two somethings in order to get together and have a baby, and it seems reasonable to call those sexes. Q2) Even if microbiologists are working out some kind of chicanery about how embryos develop in the first hours or weeks after conception, it doesn't change the facts on the ground in the visible world. All males are males because of their visible sexual characteristics, laid down in stone at the time of their birth or perhaps some time before. If it turns out that all human beings spend a brief period of time in the embryonic stage as ambiguously sexed, then that's fascinating evidence about the march of medical science and biology - but surely any QT type will tell you (as Ana Mardoll tells us) that the key ingredient to being trans is that your gender identity is different from your sex. In short, "trans man" means "person of the 'male gender identity' who was born with female genitalia." If there's no transition, there's no trans.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-07-15T08:34:30+00:00

An old Soviet joke that I've quoted a bunch of times, here and elsewhere:

A man wants to buy some bread, but when he goes to the store, all the shelves are empty. "Do you really have no bread at all?" "No," said the shopkeeper, "we're a fishmonger and we don't have any fish. It's the bakery next door that doesn't have any bread."

Even if a one-year old, one-month old, or one-hour old baby boy can't produce sperm yet, it's completely obvious that he will be able to. If I took you to a newborn ward in a hospital and said, "pick five babies here, and I'll give you a thousand dollars for each one who gives birth but you give me a thousand for each one that doesn't," are you really going to pick a baby with a penis because you just don't know?

levoyageur718293 · 2020-07-14T20:34:27+00:00

That was the very first thing I said with this account back on the other site. My solution was "15ers" and "19ers" for men and women respectively. I never got a good consensus from QT on what "women" (as QT defines them) need as a group compared to what "19ers" (people who did or would have received the federal vote in the USA via the 19th amendment) obviously need.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-07-07T20:49:12+00:00

Contra was a "bridesmaid" at Lindsay's wedding.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-07-05T07:12:23+00:00

Every time I see this, I upvote it.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-06-30T10:18:31+00:00

That Google Doodle enrages me, too. It's such disinformation.

levoyageur718293 · 2020-06-30T04:09:33+00:00

What a disgusting act on Reddit's part. I'm glad to see that the torch will not go out.

levoyageur718293