The wider impacts of transgender acceptance

[Skitarii]

It's no secret that we're all made different, and some of us have conditions that make us appear physically abnormal. Sometimes, it has to do with gland problems, sometimes a person can have wonky hormones, sometimes they can just look plain ugly. If a chick had an androgen problem that made her grow facial hair or if she looked masculine, or if a dude happened to look super effeminate, 20 years ago, they'd be seen as freaky, but not much more. Nowadays, with the salience of transgenderism in the public opinion, these people might be mistaken for transgenders, to the detriment of their reputation and social relationships.

Your thoughts DT?

 

[Blacklight]

Wider studies have proven LBGT acceptance is actually down across the board. Right now acceptance is somewhere along the low 40's when in times like the early 2010's it was high 60's. People are just tired of all the screeching faggots have been doing the past twenty or so odd years, and recent trends with grooming isn't doing them any favors.

 

[The Cunting Death]

Wider studies have proven LBGT acceptance is actually down across the board. Right now acceptance is somewhere along the low 40's when in times like the early 2010's it was high 60's. People are just tired of all the screeching faggots have been doing the past twenty or so odd years, and recent trends with grooming isn't doing them any favors.

Source on that?

 

[Bixby Snyder]

I see an ugly women, I don’t think she is just ugly.

I now think, “Is that a tranny?”

 

[NekoRightsActivist]

good, so one day people will accept nekogender as a legit identity UwU

 

[Dirk Willems]

I see an ugly women, I don’t think she is just ugly.

I now think, “Is that a tranny?”

It makes me feel bad for these women when I catch myself thinking that way. Sadly, I think it's pretty normal to wonder about them at least. Tomboys are vanishing as well.

 

[I (Don't) Have A Gun]

It's no secret that we're all made different, and some of us have conditions that make us appear physically abnormal. Sometimes, it has to do with gland problems, sometimes a person can have wonky hormones, sometimes they can just look plain ugly. If a chick had an androgen problem that made her grow facial hair or if she looked masculine, or if a dude happened to look super effeminate, 20 years ago, they'd be seen as freaky, but not much more. Nowadays, with the salience of transgenderism in the public opinion, these people might be mistaken for transgenders, to the detriment of their reputation and social relationships.

That's a very limited... or shall we say curated view on intersex conditions. Not too inaccurate mind you, but it's a lot more interesting than that.

The DSD definition "congenital conditions in which development of chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomical sex is atypical". it doesn't just mean chicks with beards (although that is included... but with that condition you'd like see a lot more than just a beard being grown... the human body is complicated thing and hormonal issues hardly just have impact on one aspect of the body).

Transgender-activists are quick to bring up intersex to justify transgenderism but it's hardly the same. Not all intersex conditions render you as some kind of ambiguous in-between gender or agendered entity.
For example I'd hardly call a man with a micropenis evidence for the existence of transgenderism, but guess what some of the causes of having a micropenis are intersex conditions. Kinderfelt syndrome is another (related) example, in men you get soyboys with bitch-tits and on the topic of chromosomal anomalies remember "super males" syndrome which also conforms to the definition of intersex.

So I'd always find it funny when intersex gets brought up to justify for guys becoming woman because apparently Ethan Ralph (micropenis) and Armoured Skeptic (XYY / super male syndrome) are justification that biological sex is socially constructed or something.

 

[Wormy]

>>they'd be seen as freaky, but not much more

Yea, because people with deformities or genetic abnormalities NEVER faced societal backlash and cruelty before trannies. Someone's never heard of Victorian asylums....

I see an ugly women, I don’t think she is just ugly.

I now think, “Is that a tranny?”

That's a "You" problem, fo sho.

 

[Prophetic Spirit]

Simple.
The real impact of accepting those abominations mental-illed people is fracturing the same movement who's supported them: feminists.
I love that; i'm assuming when troons could be an actual %, there's gonna be chaos in feminist movements.
3rd wave was a clear mistake. 1st & 2nd would never have let this shit happen.

 

[I am vomit]

Those people are usually pushed into transitioning by these faggots. or used as woke points to promote "non binary" So no, acceptance is the same with normal people with imbalances, facial hair, or some androgyny, just the trannies and freaks think they belong to them now and that they aren't allowed to be normal people. They have to be part of the genital mutilation freak show.

 

[Osmosis Jones]

I'll just show them my penis to prove I'm not a faggot

 

[Nykysnottrans]

Source on that?

Here you go:

Americans grew to accept gay people and even gay marriage through friendships, normalcy and time. They never cared about the personal choices of transgender people. Most simply do not care what adults do in private. But the more the LGBT movement imposes their demands on the daily lives of average people with threats of losing their livelihood and reputation if offended, the less acceptance they are likely to find. This is especially true when their ideas directly threaten the safety of children or vulnerable populations.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/30/americans-comfort-levels-lgbt-people-dropped-last-year/

Also related:

"men, heterosexuals, older people, those with less education, those in rural areas, Republicans, conservatives, and those who attend religious services more frequently were more likely to endorse denial of service than their counterparts."

"And while Americans were more likely to support refusal to a gay couple (53%), there was surprisingly strong support for business denying services to interracial couples (39%) despite laws prohibiting racial discrimination. In fact, there was no difference in support for refusal by couple type once we accounted for Americans’ greater opposition to same-sex marriage than interracial marriage."

https://scatter.wordpress.com/2017/12/26/guest-post-what-the-public-thinks-about-denial-of-service-to-same-sex-couples/

Edit: Here are some stats on trans acceptance from the UK from a 2018 poll:

Sadly @PeterTatchell has conflated the two issues in a deeply irresponsible
way. And you're right, none of this is representative. Most people aren't
following the details and, across the UK, just 19% of a recent poll agreed
with the statement 'transwomen are women'.

https://twitter.com/simonjedge/status/1056516068854915072

Only 19% of the UK agrees with the concept that transwomen are women.

Women are more likely to agree with the concept that transwomen are women compared to men (23% of woman vs 14% of men).

The older someone is the more likely they are to agree with the concept that biological sex is what determines whether someone is a man or a woman. The young age group (aged 18-24) is less certain, with about a third thinking self-ID determines whether someone is a man or a woman, and a third thinking biological sex is the important determinant.

Is it hate speech to think women don’t have a penis?
Q3: Still thinking about a person who was born male and has male genitalia but who identifies as a woman. Some people believe that ‘women cannot have male genitalia’. Please move the sliding scale to indicate which statement below most accurately reflects your opinion.

0 – This is a legitimate viewpoint and should be allowed to be expressed

10 – This is hate speech and is unacceptable

There are a spread of views amongst all respondents with most opting for ‘neither’. However, when comparing the extreme ends of opinion, only 5% of the UK considers expressing the view that ‘women cannot have male genitalia’ as hate speech.

Male respondents were much more likely to consider this a legitimate view point compared to female respondents.

Young people are more likely than the older age groups to condemn this as hate speech.

The results of the Populus on-line survey following the UK Gender Recognition Act consultation 2018 - 15th November 2018 by FPFW

https://fairplayforwomen.com/poll/

 

[FeatherPlucker]

Human extinction is the consequence.
I predict women will become extinct first. Transhumanism includes many "great thinkers" who are gay men, therefor have no use for women. Tech includes many male CEOs who are gay. They find women repulsive and useless. They think overpopulation will destroy the environment they want to profit off of. They help fund this movement.
Many low paying "women's work" jobs are already becoming automated. We women will be pushed into high-mortality jobs like "sex work", becoming incubators for rich gay men, and will be reduced to selling our wombs to trannies so we can afford food. We will be replaced by robots and artificial wombs.... We will die by starvation/unemployment, murder, suicide, and be CRISPrd out of existence.
The birth rate will drop, as only rich men will afford to reproduce. Human extinction is inevitable, because transhumanists don't value human life. They'd rather BECOME robots than remain living beings. It's bizarre.

 

[Nykysnottrans]

The birth rate will drop,

Yeah sure, "the birth rate with drop", but for whom exactly:

Niger tops the list at 6.8 children per woman, followed by Somalia at 6.0, the Democratic Republic of Congo (5., Mali (5., and Chad (5.6).

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/total-fertility-rate

I'll believe all this bullshit about "human extinction" when the above countries have similar birth rates to the West. Good luck teaching them about birth control, it's been tried for years.

Or do white Western women really wanna go back to the good ole days of having 7 kids and watching 5 of them die before the age of 5 due to preventable causes?

 

[FeatherPlucker]

Yeah sure, "the birth rate with drop", but for whom exactly:



I'll believe all this bullshit about "human extinction" when the above countries have similar birth rates to the West. Good luck teaching them about birth control, it's been tried for years.

Or do white Western women really wanna go back to the good ole days of having 7 kids and watching 5 of them die before the age of 5 due to preventable causes?

No, I don't want to drop seven kids. If you're implying I am worried about the "white birth rate", that is a no. With CRSPR in the future, rich people will be able to choose skin color of their children anyway.

There are other ways to erase a population besides sterilization, diseases, etc.. However, promoting transgenderism is an effective way to promote sterilization in western cultures.

The reality is that men, who have more power and money at their disposal in general than women, often don't see any use for us besides sex and childbirth. If we have no "use" within that framework, if they decide they'd rather have ladyboys, transwomen and artificial wombs, then there is no reason for we women to exist in a world that they control. The murders of female infants have always existed, but a few always survived because it was necessary to reproduce. Women have been subjected to violence during wars, but a few always remained as they were useful for reproduction. We will not have any legal or cultural protection against male violence at all, because we won't be "useful" to them anymore. In the animal kingdom, "might makes right", and we are the smaller and physically weaker sex.

Some people claim we women developed smaller bodies because we were given less food, and smaller women survived longer because food rations were held back from them in order to feed men. Smaller bodies need fewer calories. Historically, we were seen as "useless eaters". The whole focus on environmentalism will be another "justification" to erase us, because we can breed children and increase the population, which will "waste resources". Men will choose to keep precious resources for themselves and their "transwomen" brothers and male lovers. Broes before hoes.

 

[PipTheAlchemist]

It makes me feel bad for these women when I catch myself thinking that way

I don't. Infact, I believe it should be illegal for a woman to be a 5/10 or less. Whether that woman is a tranny, or a biohole. Any ugly woman should be required to get cosmetic surgery, until they stop being ugly

 

[Anasûrimbor Kellhus]

I see an ugly women, I don’t think she is just ugly.

I now think, “Is that a tranny?”

If a chick had an androgen problem that made her grow facial hair or if she looked masculine, or if a dude happened to look super effeminate, 20 years ago,

No joke I was at a church function a few months ago and I saw a girl who I later learned just had some hormone imbalance but I had clocked them as a tranny since my tradar is pretty sensitive due to how much time I spend online in threads like these. I felt so bad for assuming that when I was later told the truth of the matter.

 

[AnnLurker]

That's a very limited... or shall we say curated view on intersex conditions. Not too inaccurate mind you, but it's a lot more interesting than that.

The DSD definition "congenital conditions in which development of chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomical sex is atypical". it doesn't just mean chicks with beards (although that is included... but with that condition you'd like see a lot more than just a beard being grown... the human body is complicated thing and hormonal issues hardly just have impact on one aspect of the body).

Transgender-activists are quick to bring up intersex to justify transgenderism but it's hardly the same. Not all intersex conditions render you as some kind of ambiguous in-between gender or agendered entity.
For example I'd hardly call a man with a micropenis evidence for the existence of transgenderism, but guess what some of the causes of having a micropenis are intersex conditions. Kinderfelt syndrome is another (related) example, in men you get soyboys with bitch-tits and on the topic of chromosomal anomalies remember "super males" syndrome which also conforms to the definition of intersex.

So I'd always find it funny when intersex gets brought up to justify for guys becoming woman because apparently Ethan Ralph (micropenis) and Armoured Skeptic (XYY / super male syndrome) are justification that biological sex is socially constructed or something.

Trannys like to bring up intersex because back in the day it was actually really common to assign sex to babies based on genitalia length.
So some kids might be born with enlarged or malformed parts that resemble a penis and the doctor goes "That's a boy" or "That's a girl" based on how long it is. Typically though, even if you put these people on hormones to "correct" or cut a penis off a normal little boy cause it was too small or accidently chopped it off (David, for example) that kid didn't grow up to be a normal person of the opposite sex, far from it.

Thankfully this practice has greatly reduced over the years but it's effects will still be around at least for this generation still.

These are the kids that often knew deep down they really were X or Y and hated shit and the trannies of today have grabbed onto that because they are fetishistic monsters who hate their bodies and claim "Dysphoria" when in reality they just like the idea of thinking they can fool people with their disgusting bodies and shit personalities and they genuinely get off to it. The few intersex people that have these issues you likely will never recognize them as "trans", they just dress and act as normally as possible and avoid this bullshit.

Intersex and "trans" make up MAYBE 10 million people on the planet in total, MAYBE. The current trenders and fetishists out there completely outnumber the genuine medical freaks at least 20 to 1. It's an extreme shitshow and I wish they would all just go back to being fucking faggots instead of pretending to be women.

 

[FuckedOffToff]

I don't. Infact, I believe it should be illegal for a woman to be a 5/10 or less. Whether that woman is a tranny, or a biohole. Any ugly woman should be required to get cosmetic surgery, until they stop being ugly

Thus proving @_giantmeteor2024_ correct. As long as the amholes are above 5/10, this guy doesn't give a shit if it's a women or a honey badger. A robot would suit pip fine, as long as it was cute.

 

[Nykysnottrans]

The whole focus on environmentalism will be another "justification" to erase us, because we can breed children and increase the population, which will "waste resources".

Again, tell that to all the women in Africa having 5-7 kids. They can't even convince those people to use a condom and you think they'll convince them to give a shit about environmentalism? In Africa, they will happily continue to have 5-7 kids and not give a shit about how that affects the environment. Because ultimately, it doesn't. Those people don't have Western consumption patterns, plus they have a high level of maternal and infant mortality and AIDS/other diseases to top it off, so it really doesn't matter.

No, I don't want to drop seven kids.

This isn't about you or what you want, this is about what is presently happening in the world. I cited the birth rates in Africa to counter your claim about human extinction. How on earth will there ever be a human extinction if there are still women somewhere on this planet who are made to have 7 kids? Ergo, there is no human extinction. It's bullshit fear-mongering. "Human extinction" is just the environmentalist version of "trans genocide", another bullshit fear-mongering claim.