Megathread Tranny Sideshows on Social Media - Any small-time spectacle on Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter, Dating Sites, and other social media.

  • 🔧 Actively working on site again.
Imagine going from Chad grandpa to whatever the fuck this is.

Screenshot_20211118-120706.jpg


:story:

Imagine cutting your dick off at 73 years old. I have to believe he was hopelessly impotent.

Edit: he also thinks he has a "monthly cycle." Never mind that the average woman begins menopause in her early 50s; tranpa here is still cycling in his 70s only 2+ years on tiddy skittles.

Screenshot_20211118-134439.jpg


(:_(
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the double post, this just came up.

Michael Hobbes, a British journalist, has discovered that Chapelle lied about Daphne. Societal transphobia killed Chapelle's friend, not fellow trans harassment.

Link. It appears he does not allow ANY comments on his journalism whatsoever. Contrast this with Alex Berenson or Glenn Greenwald, whose comment sections are filled with reader input.

He also lacks predictive power. These predictions came true.

View attachment 2727574

View attachment 2727575

He was on a Podcast, 'You're wrong about' that has 121k listeners yet cannot pull in more than 150 likes per post. Twitter.

So if you see BreadTube/troon Twitter talk about Chapelle, this is what they are referring to.

Here is his post on CRT/race panic. Comments closed again.

Some Jack Saint stuff, will post the rest in the BreadTube thread.
View attachment 2727571
Journalists are the biggest fags.
 
So this wasn't woke pandering, "woke" was in its infancy in 2007.

Not really tho. It's just gotten progressively crazier.

To put it into perspective, California of all places banned gay marriage a year later.

They had a referendum (vehemently opposed by establishment politicians, celebrities and rich assholes, then quickly overturned by unelected judges) because people were already getting tired of woke pandering.

Section 28 was a UK law that essentially forbade the positive portrayal of gay characters in children's media.

No. It was a law that stopped local government from promoting homosexuality to children. Nothing to do with the media at all. Since it was repealed UK kiddos now get to enjoy this kind of healthy LGBTQ+ stuff, without their bigoted parents having knowing about it :tomgirl:

1_THP_MDG_240220Slug_15842JPG.jpg


🏴‍☠️PIRATE TROON UPDATE MATEYS 🦜
Piratetroon~2.jpg

23 tho :stress:

IF CHINS COULD KILL
Chinmaster~2.jpg
 
No. It was a law that stopped local government from promoting homosexuality to children. Nothing to do with the media at all.
In other words: it was a law that determined what kind of literature was allowed in public school libraries (aka within local government's jurisdictions). The entire publishing industry of UK children's literature was built around avoiding invoking this law, much like current Hollywood blockbusters avoid introducing major gay characters because that would mean that their movies would never be cleared for release to the Chinese market. There's a reason capeshit will pander to race (Black Panther) and feminism (Captain Marvel) but there's no such gay main character, despite there being plenty within the comic book source material. That's also the reason the Harry Potter "Fantastic Beasts" prequels don't dare show Dumbledore's gay relationship with Grindelwald, despite Rowling having established that they were gay lovers for over a decade now. It'd cost them the non-Western market.
 
On Dumbledore being gay:


Don't forget that he was always dressed in extra over the top robes. Stars, shiny fabric, brilliant colors, just flamboyant in a way that other wizards didn’t seem to be. Even accounting for the horrid colors they sometimes dressed in. I think she was trying to give us hints in how he was dressed. But remember that we see Dumbledore only through Harry's viewpoint. What 11-17 year old thinks of their teachers as being adults with a personal and sexual life? It makes sense that he would never connect the dots. And thus we wouldn't know. The way she described his relationship with Grindwald was definitely somewhat sexual, I admit thinking when I read it that it sounded kinda gay, so when she said he was it made sense to me.

/autism
Now that you misspelled it that way I am going to call him Grindrwald from now on.

Anyway I agree, and we also have to take into account that while homosexuality and gender non-conformity was taboo in both Britain and the US until recently, neutral non-obvious depictions were not completely absent from children’s entertainment in Britain the way they were in the US. Having a somewhat obvious but not explicitly gay teacher that you clarify is gay later just doesn’t strike me as weird given that wider cultural context, but might sound more pandering to Americans. Any Britbongs feel free to step in and correct me if I’m wrong.
 
Just noticed that the tranny symbol in the front page feature isn't an in line image but rather the autistic troons in tech have made it into a unicode symbol. it's been there since 2005/Unicode 4.1 ‍⚧️ God help us all. Also I've just noticed that the top left arrow is for "man who had his dick cut off." hence the slash through the arrow.

View attachment 2728321
It is, but the reason you can see it is because the trans flag emoji, 🏳️‍⚧️, is broken. Most flag emojis work as standalone flags, but this one is the white flag emoji + a merge symbol + the trans sign. The trans flag was added in the last emoji update (along with the trans logo as an emoji rather than just unicode) so it doesn't work on all platforms, but if you're phone posting you'd see it as
transgender-flag_1f3f3-fe0f-200d-26a7-fe0f.png
and transgender-symbol_26a7-fe0f.png.

The only other ones that work like this are the rainbow flag 🏳️‍🌈 and the pirate flag 🏴‍☠️ (and the unofficial "refugee nation" flag that only works on Whatsapp: 🏳‍🟧⬛🟧
refugee-nation-flag_1f3f3-200d-1f7e7-200d-2b1b-200d-1f7e7.png
). The merge symbols are how they do skin tone and gender variants on all emojis like 🎅🏿🤶🏻🧑🏾‍🎄 (that last one is a gender neutral Mx Claus and is also new so probably won't display on PC).

Also those merge symbols went viral because someone used them to make an anti-LGBT symbol🏳️‍🌈⃠ that renders correctly on iOS:
a25 (1).jpg

I can't believe I'm discussing Dumbledore being gay in Current Year, but fuck it. I think one thing about this "retcon" in particular is that it gets unfairly lumped in with all the other stupid additions Rowling made to HP canon over the years, but this is actually just as much of a revision of history as troons now trying to rewrite her past as sexist/racist/etc in light of her transphobia. The Dumbledore-being-gay revelation is not part of Rowling's woke twitter retcons, it just got lumped into them in retrospect. This particular tidbit got added to canon in 2007, only 3 months after the last book was released and before the last few movies were. It absolutely was part of canon - it's normal for authors to have detailed backstories about certain characters that never make it into the books, and the Dumbledore revelation was part of a larger set of background details about various characters that she talked about at fan conventions in an effort to promote the 7th book. So this wasn't woke pandering, "woke" was in its infancy in 2007. To put it into perspective, California of all places banned gay marriage a year later. It was just a very different cultural time.

Another thing to keep in mind is Section 28. Section 28 was a UK law that essentially forbade the positive portrayal of gay characters in children's media. This law was only repealed in 2003 - and Harry Potter started being published 1997. That's right, when Rowling started writing the series, her publisher would not have allowed her to make Dumbledore openly gay. Which isn't to say people didn't write gay characters under section 28. They did, and they used some recognizable tropes to signal a character's homosexuality in the subtext. And Rowling was signaling hard with Dumbledore - older man, never married, no children despite being good with children, flamboyant clothing and personality, and an extremely close "friendship" with another man who's also a confirmed bachelor.
I hate to disagree with this excellent post but Section 28 only applied to local authorities, forbidding them from promoting homosexuality to children or the "acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". As this was never clearly defined the response was for local authorities to just refuse to talk about homosexuality to children, which obviously included all state schools.

It largely happened because a school in London had bought a copy of this book:
518yFXwXr3L.jpg

("Jenny Lives With Eric And Martin") and put it in a school library. I've actually seen a copy of the book and it's basically a picture book for little kids, wherein Jenny goes to the laundrette with Daddy and Eric, Mummy (divorced but amicable) and Daddy plan a surprise birthday party for Eric, and then a nasty lady says something mean to Daddy and Eric and they have to explain to Jenny that sometimes people don't like people like Daddy and Eric:
img156.jpg

img159.jpg
img160.jpg
and although the book is pretty harmless, it was made by the Danes so there's some pictures that are a bit jarring (they're basically of Jenny in bed with the two dads and the dads are in their underwear). The whole thing got labelled homosexual propaganda and lead to Thatcher criticising the belief that anyone should think they have an "inalienable right to be gay"
So it would have been legal to publish a book with Dumbledore being openly gay, although now I've sperged all about Section 28 I realise your point is more that a publisher wouldn't have greenlit a book aimed at children with an openly gay character because it would have been illegal for schools and libraries to stock it. And Harry Potter ended up being pretty controversial as is with book burnings because it "promoted witchcraft" so I can only imagine what would have happened if it also had Dumbledore openly chatting about his ex-bf being a genocidal dictator or whatever
 
In other words: it was a law that determined what kind of literature was allowed in public school libraries (aka within local government's jurisdictions). The entire publishing industry of UK children's literature was built around avoiding invoking this law,

Pretty sure it wasn't. How powerful do you think school libraries were in the forgotten dark ages of the early 2000's :story:

That's also the reason the Harry Potter "Fantastic Beasts" prequels don't dare show Dumbledore's gay relationship with Grindelwald

They definitely should show him pounding some magic ass with his Level 8 Fist Of Fucking. Stop cockteasing me, JK 🪄
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: behindyourightnow
Yet another reminder that there's no point in trying to appease the troons:
View attachment 2728893
>they want us all to be clockable
You are clockable. Without fail.
 
Now that you misspelled it that way I am going to call him Grindrwald from now on.

Anyway I agree, and we also have to take into account that while homosexuality and gender non-conformity was taboo in both Britain and the US until recently, neutral non-obvious depictions were not completely absent from children’s entertainment in Britain the way they were in the US. Having a somewhat obvious but not explicitly gay teacher that you clarify is gay later just doesn’t strike me as weird given that wider cultural context, but might sound more pandering to Americans. Any Britbongs feel free to step in and correct me if I’m wrong.
So fucking obvious you could see it from the moon was also OK in childrens entertainment, as long as it wasn't explicitly stated.

Evidence: This show started in 1972. Let's meet Bungle.


Edit to add: To be fair, Brit children's TV has always been fucking weird. The Wombles taught gentle ecoterrorism, Bagpuss was Marxism for toddlers, and the only message any kids ever got from The Magic Roundabout was "Drugs are totally fucking awesome."
 
Last edited:
So fucking obvious you could see it from the moon was also OK in childrens entertainment, as long as it wasn't explicitly stated.

Evidence: This show started in 1972. Let's meet Bungle.


Edit to add: To be fair, Brit children's TV has always been fucking weird. The Wombles taught gentle ecoterrorism, Bagpuss was Marxism for toddlers, and the only message any kids ever got from The Magic Roundabout was "Drugs are totally fucking awesome."
Holy shit the second to last one.

Matches my memories of all the British children’s entertainment I have seen, which is at least 80% thinly veiled faggotry (I say that with affection).

A flamboyantly gay Dumbledore fits right in, especially when you consider that the books are set in a boarding school of all places.
 
So fucking obvious you could see it from the moon was also OK in childrens entertainment, as long as it wasn't explicitly stated.

Evidence: This show started in 1972. Let's meet Bungle.


Edit to add: To be fair, Brit children's TV has always been fucking weird. The Wombles taught gentle ecoterrorism, Bagpuss was Marxism for toddlers, and the only message any kids ever got from The Magic Roundabout was "Drugs are totally fucking awesome."
Sorry, you're referencing gay characters off of Rainbow and you went for Bungle over George? George the hippopotamus? George the pink effeminate hippopotamus who had giant eyelashes. spoke with a lisp, was a giant softie and definitely had a thing for Zippy?
0_Thames-TV-Archive.jpg
 
Back