Reactionary Radical Eliminationists vs. Trans

Okay, cop-sucker.

Yeah, yeah. None the problems I have with cops count, because I don't bitch about the thing YOU insist is most important. I heard you the first five thousand fucking times, and it's still as ignorant as the first time you floated it.

*Looks up cannabis laws in Nebraska*
Get a medical card from a doctor feelgood, and shuddup.

You're fine with ICE masking up and detaining people without due process, but get your undies twisted over DUI checks.
That is not the strong rebuttal you might think it is.

That's a weird way of saying "yes, I can confirm I didn't break any laws".

Which is a kind of weird thing for us to be talking about, if not for the fact you are clearly very very passionate about these issues, as shown by your ongoing obsession with needing to protect children from the evil woke agenda of trans and gay people.

Say, howcome all the man-on-boy church molestation hasn't turned three generations of men gay?
If kids can be transed, surely they can be homo-ed.
I hate to keep bringing up how UA is one year younger than me, and ought to remember that we grew up hearing this bullshit about gay people, and it didn't come true.
No, I relish bringing it up,
Fuck you, and your sieve memory, UA.
This is Red Room, right?
Yeah, fuck you, UA.

This is a fascinating post. Let's break it down

First of all it assumes that gay bikers are total fags with a lisp and outlandish pink vest that would be instantly noticed by the nazi bikers

Biker culture definitely has some people with abhorrent views, but they are a minority. Most bikers are just normal people

The chances of a gay biker running into a Nazi biker is crazy small and the nazi biker would probably not even know if gay biker was gay in the first place

Given @Diacanu 's sheltered upbringing, I think we can safely assume he's never met an actual biker, let alone a gay biker

But he respects the hell out of them

This is just such a beautiful example of empty virtue signaling, @Diacanu taking time out his day to make up a strange declaration about gay bikers so he can give himself a pat on the back

Nah, that's all you.
You transphobic corporatist shill.

Translation: I'm not a creep, you're a creep for asking a question that should be easy to answer!

Let me help you, Al:
The first time I was intimate with my wife, we were both well into adulthood.
That should be easy for you to say, too.

We know bud, we know

The Jenee story.

Gross

Almost every country is beating our ass these days when it comes to trans rights regarding bathroom bills.
Also, there's a reason a lot of us have been calling Britain "TERF Island" for a while now. I didn't know it was that bad, but damn.

The whole Ipsos survey is worth checking out.



Source: https://www.ipsos.com/en/ipsos-pride-survey-2025

I'm suspicious of that one. The very reason that we have the sports "issue" now, and the care for minors argument, is because the zealots had to give up on the restroom thing because people largely didn't give a fuck.

I provoked an old man to rant in McDonalds this month (very unintentionally of course) due to urgency, and literally no one else in the store backed him, the manager told him (in nicer language) to fuck off and mind his own business - and it was the first time (that I'm aware of) that anyone has made an issue out of me in over a decade. And I remind you this is the reddest part of MS.

Force them to answer a question and they will probably knee-jerk to the Christianist trope but day to day, very few give a fuck.

if only they would vote better.

The BBC joins The New York Times and The Washington Post in giving TERFs every editorial power they can while trans folks get the blame for all of the latest ills in society.
It's a level of regression that is unsurprising, but still frustrating to watch. These people are giddily shooting themselves in the foot to be as bigoted and ignorant as they can and for what? Because they see a small percentage of the population that doesn't fit in their narrow box of what is and isn't sexuality and gender, and it makes them shit themselves in rage.


BBC Now Calling Trans Women 'Biological Males Who Identify As Women'
These stories come in the aftermath of allegations that a small but mighty cabal of “LGBT reporters” had somehow seized control of the BBC and “censored” right-wing views.

Source: https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/bbc-now-calling-trans-women-biological

There's no science behind the move. None. The only way the term makes sense is if you failed biology class in school, or get all of your talking points from low information Youtubers who just want to hate women and gays and saw a great grifting opportunity.

Trans Panic? More Like Trans Apathetic

Juan Williams at The Hill wrote that, “after the success of Trump’s advertising, there is no longer any argument about the Republicans’ political wisdom in highlighting transgender rights to label Democrats as weak on traditional family values.” Almost a year after the election, The New Yorker’s David Remnick, interviewing Jon Stewart, observed, “The most politically effective advertisement for the Trump campaign was the one about trans people. ‘She is for them, he is for you.’ That was extremely effective—"

It became an article of faith, a creed that loomed over America’s small trans population like a pall of dread. Yet there were always cracks in the thesis. A randomised controlled trial by Ground Media at the campaign’s end found that the ad wasn’t likely to change the vote of likely voters, even if it made them marginally more transphobic.

And then the idea shattered against the blue wave of the 2025 elections.

It is difficult to overstate the failure of the transphobic strategy. In Virginia, outgoing Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears ran a slate of ads against her opponent that were a literal Ctrl-F-Replace job against now Governor-Elect Abigail Spanberger, saying “Abigail Spanberger is for they/them!” 57% of the Virginia GOP’s ad spend was devoted to trans issues alone.

The result was that Earle-Sears lost by 15 points in a landslide that also swept away many of her colleagues in the House of Delegates, leaving Democrats with a staggering 64-36 seat majority, and neither Spanberger’s political momentum nor her authority were in any way blunted by the ad onslaught. It was, by any reasonable measure, a cataclysmic night for the transphobes and for the argument that transphobia is kryptonite for Dems.
----------------------------

But the fixation on issue polling obscures a deeper truth. Someone may, if asked, give an up or down opinion on something, yes. But this tells you nothing about how passionately committed they are to that idea, or how much it motivates them to act upon it.

If you were to ask me which NFL team I hated the most, I’d probably say the Dallas Cowboys or the New England Patriots. That said, I don’t really watch football (you cannot force me to understand what a ‘fourth down’ is and I refuse to learn). I’m a baseball girlie. I may have a vague, infrequently-thought-of, casual dislike of the Cowboys, but I also just don’t really care that much.

If you were to instead ask me to rank which sports I was most interested in, you’d get a clearer picture of what matters to me and what actually makes me ill-advisedly sign up for particular streaming services at certain times of the year.

When we look at opinion polls about what actually motivates voters and their choices at the ballot box, trans issues are often dead last. And it’s worth noting that much of that polling makes no distinction between positive or negative views of trans rights. As a voter, I’d rate trans rights as a significant factor in my decisionmaking, but I’m obviously quite pro-my-own-rights-and-dignity. Of the 4% of Virginian voters who said school policies on trans students were front of mind, it’s likely some of them were pro-trans.

For example, likely Virginian voters actually trusted Abigail Spanberger more on trans issues than Winsome Earle-Sears, by a margin of 13 points; another poll showed “transgender issues” rating last among voter priorities. In that poll, some 27% of likely voters said trans issues were “very important” to their vote (and, again, note that support or opposition to trans rights is not specified here). This seems like a lot until you see that the economy is rated as “very important” to nearly eighty percent of the likely voters surveyed.

Further cementing the fact that even actual voter antipathy to trans rights isn’t enough to make those voters reliably Republican, Spanberger picked up some 23% of the vote from people who expressly said support for trans rights had “gone too far.”

In short, if asked, many Americans have a view on trans people. But most of them just don’t care enough about us to use their one precious vote to express that view.

This dynamic defines trans issues’ salience—or lack thereof—in America today. We are not, contrary to widespread belief on the most doomer corners of social media, widely hated. But neither are we beloved. Instead, the dominant mood among the cis supermajority is one of indifference towards trans people. We are an idle curiosity, a source of mild interest or mild disgust, but simply too few in number, too abstract, to constitute so much as a mote in anyone’s eye.

The enduring salience of economic issues, by contrast, lies in the obvious fact that they are widespread and of daily concern. Regardless of gender identity, we all pay monthly bills, we frequently buy groceries, those of us who drive have to fill the tank every few days. Whether or not one diagnoses the causes of rising prices correctly, they’re much more likely to be important to ordinary voters and drive their decision-making at the polls.

Mass indifference towards trans people has, historically, been our ally. It has provided a protective umbrella for the march of trans rights over the last two decades. After all, since public recognition of our rights and dignity harms no one, most people are not apt to notice, much less get upset. To oppose trans people’s dignity full-throatedly required ideological commitment—and, often, turning it into one’s whole personality. Most people don’t have that kind of time.

The flipside of this, of course, is the hell we’ve been living through for the last several years. If most ordinary people are too indifferent to fight the progress of trans rights, then they’ll also be too indifferent to fight against the entryism of a cadre of transphobes into government and media. Too indifferent to stand up, en masse, against a rollback of trans rights led by that hardened core of ideologues who do have the kind of time to make anti-trans hatred their whole world.


More at the link

That Viral Essay Scandal is (SURPRISE!) Actually About Trans People


Instantly the internet erupted in discourse. Cis liberals and academics immediately latched onto and mocked the essay's poor argumentation and composition, saying it obviously deserved its failing grade. They saw it as a general attack on academia. A lone conservative student trying to game the system for a better grade.

But trans people saw what's actually happening.

The TA who gave the assignment and graded it is trans. This whole thing is just another attack on trans people in positions of authority in academia.

The paper itself attacked trans people, the paper was submitted to a trans teacher, the trans teacher failed it, and now the trans teacher is the only one getting punished in this whole sad affair.

While everyone else has been dunking on the essay's obviously poor quality, I see a conservative student angling to be the next Riley Gaines, the infamous 5th place (tied) swimmer who used a race against a trans woman to launch a million dollar career as a professional anti-trans activist. I think this student, who I will not name here, intentionally wrote this essay this way in the hopes of escalating it for attention.

I mean, the student's mom is over on Twitter right now retweeting prominent conservatives calling for trans people to be banned from teaching.

The student's mom, Kristi Fulnecky, is an interesting figure herself. She's a former Springfield, MO city councilmember who faced a recall campaign in 2017 before resigning in late 2018. She's a conservative attorney who sued several cities in 2020 seeking to overturn local mask mandates and went on to defend several J6ers.

It appears the Fulneckys finally found their path to conservative stardom with the OU essay "scandal." After all, this is the age of Libs of Tik Tok and the aforementioned Gaines, stoking hatred towards trans people on social media is by far the easiest way to get famous these days.

But perhaps even more worrying than one family's grasp at transphobic grift is how conservatives are using trans people to attack the university system nationwide.

I read that paper.
I think the TA made a mistake in giving it a zero. I reserve zeros for missing assignments or AI-written work.
That said, I still would give it a 60% at best, if I was feeling generous. Badly written and didn't really accomplish the goals of the assignment.
Maybe give it a 55% and offer to let the student revise it.
So the student wrote a shitty paper. But the TA should have given it a more substantive grade than zero.
Still, it's all a bunch of crap.

The BBC tells the truth for a change. Broken clocks and all that.

No one was talking to you, bigot.

Well that's a shame the BBC's shift towards accuracy offends you

The term of course makes complete sense

It seems the only one shitting themselves with rage is you

I remember when you used to matter here. People loved it when you'd joke and have fun, and now you're just this bitter Bill Maher type who has fun punching down on everyone because you're so insecure about your own self you have to target someone else.

I changed, but it was for the better. I grew, I learned more about myself. Accepted more about myself and others.

You changed, and somehow managed to get so much worse. It's sad to see you being a troll who can't even compete on the level of UA or even FF these days.

Sorry, Lubak, I just don't have time for your empty, self-hating bitterness anymore.

I do hope you have a happy life, because it sure doesn't show here.

Were they calling them "trans women" before?
If so, I'm not sure that changing that to "biological men who identify as women" does anything other than say the same thing more tediously.

And that's assuming good faith, which I don't at all.

Exactly this. I know that @Crosis36 and I don't agree on everything regarding trans people, but there doesn't seem to be an issue with seeing them as actual human beings and not an Other to discriminate against. This is such a low bar, and I have to believe anyone who can't cross it just hates certain groups of people as one does if they're a bigot. Science backs the understanding that trans people are experiencing body dysphoria, and that hormones can mitigate and ameliorate that dysphoria.

To be against people getting what they need to deal with that shouldn't be a major issue, but the Republican party made us a wedge issue, just as they did gay people, and just as they've done to every non-white group of people for generations.

You rarely hear anything about trans men, though, and why? Because, from their perspective, a woman trying to be a man is almost admirable, because they see women as being lesser than men and trying to fight their way up. A man trying to be a woman, though? That's a betrayal of the hierarchy. Why would you subvert your own privilege to embrace an identity that will leave you as a lesser person?

Trans people have been around since before recorded human history, we're just one more adaptation of evolutionary principles just as some people have different traits to deal with their environment. We've observed transgender and transsexual properties in various species throughout nature, so why can't humans have a similar genetic adaptation? We know they do, we have evidence of it.

The people who are so scientifically illiterate that they think there are only two genders or only XX and XY are often the loudest, but their knowledge is empty. They don't understand, and honestly I don't think they care. They're like fundamentalist Christians who refuse to accept evolution as a scientific principle. You can show them all the evidence in the world and it does not matter. They have their faith which makes them strong, and when you think you're on the side of your faith or your god, then bullying people who look and act different from you is easy to do, it's justifiable, almost righteous.

I'm pansexual and I'm transgender. I just want to live in peace. I want to look and live as who I am. I want to love who I want to love without being harmed for it.

The people who claim we're the ones causing trouble? They have said the same about every marginalized person in history during every civil rights and social struggle through history.

(As UA)
NO!! NO!! You want my Lucky Charms!!!

*Hugs box of Lucky Charms with one arm, and brandishes a pistol with the other*
Get back!! Get back!!

He's got nothing to worry about. I wouldn't touch UA's lucky charms with a ten meter cattle prod.

You'd more than a 10x microscope to even find them first.