- Joined
- Feb 24, 2019
Does not make contract yet still says he was fired. (This is one of those "breastfeeding men")
Megathread Trannies posting their L's Online - Heckin valid people posting their funny misfortunes on the internet
- Thread starter Meiwaku
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- May 31, 2021
Is there any real evidence of actual employment discrimination based on being trans in the past 15 years or more?
Even that long ago I recall it being a massive fucking no-no to not say anything which could be upsetting to any employed Troons at work.
Are they completely certain that they don’t get let go because of the myriad of other personality defects they tend to have along with the troonery?
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2021
Troons operate on only the most basic pattern recognition when it comes to stuff like this. All the dude heard was "kids", "surgery", "parents" and though "this is my chance to score epic points on those bigots", assuming that they were installing a pitching machine in place of an arm or something.
As always: kids suffer elbow injuries, troons most affected.
behindyourightnow
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 17, 2021
More coping and seething from UK trans Twitter today:
Moby Dickgirl, the man who by his own admission is too depressed to brush his teeth or wash his filthy bedsheets and rarely leaves his trash-filled bedroom, has some fightin' words for Stonewall:
All quote tweets are here but all of Twitter is overflowing with it.
I do enjoy seeing them pivot in real time from "puberty blockers have been proven by science to be safe and reversible" to "umm actually you can't study whether puberty blockers work because it's unethical and impossible to blind the studies properly, you hecking chuds"
Moby Dickgirl, the man who by his own admission is too depressed to brush his teeth or wash his filthy bedsheets and rarely leaves his trash-filled bedroom, has some fightin' words for Stonewall:
All quote tweets are here but all of Twitter is overflowing with it.
I do enjoy seeing them pivot in real time from "puberty blockers have been proven by science to be safe and reversible" to "umm actually you can't study whether puberty blockers work because it's unethical and impossible to blind the studies properly, you hecking chuds"
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2024
Not even domestic abusers and fentanyl-addicted hobos go this far with their suicide threats. And yet, us straights need a r/AreTheStraightsOk subreddit? All sides do stupid things, but the trans community are far by the worst of them all. I've never seen a group actively bring up suicide so much. Dead kids, dead bodies, dead this and dead that. Why, though? Why?
Why does injecting yourself with skittlejuice and dudebrojuice matter to you so much? Life saving procedure? Barely even sounding or looking like a woman or a man's apparently gonna keep you from killing yourselves? Don't think those popular posts of those people who can pass mean you're gonna get similar results.
I don't wish for anyone to kill themselves. That ain't like me. There are so many ways to handle gender dysphoria. There are better alternatives to appearing like the gender you want to be.
Please, just be a femboy or an effeminate man if you're a dude or a tomboy/androgynous/butch if you're a woman. That can solve so many problems than thinking you need to get into chemicals that are more severe than Trojan Horses. It's like dementia - it slowly eats you away. It takes down everything critical that is needed for your body to function properly.
Please, again, there are better alternatives. But they won't listen. They're too deep in their hugbox/echo chamber to care. They'll keep spouting the sentences and keep threatening that blood is on a parents', friends', or organization's hands because dare they not give the mentally unwell adults and children a bunch of chemicals that'll do so little for them in the long run except give them an accuse to act like they're the most oppressed class since Native Americans.
They won't learn, and all we can do is be good little kiwi's and just watch it all get worse and worse until it gets the lobotomy treatment of people waiting until the worst is done to finally rid of it. Or at least minimize it to individuals who genuinely need it and not because a fujoshi flicked off to yaoi, a dude going "I'm literally them..." to the random female character of their favorite comfort franchise, or someone who's normally feeling dissociated with their body but have no one to discuss that dissociation to except their LGBT friends.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2019
I’m amazed that stonewall of all groups are doing the reverse ferret. Stonewall have been of the worst offenders in getting this infiltration and grooming materials into schools. They’re an absolute cancer - they and mermaids have ‘trained’ the police and NHS as well.
I wonder if we will see some resignations of stonewall members?
A whole slew of anti Trooning articles in the press today. May the pendulum swing hard
I wonder if we will see some resignations of stonewall members?
A whole slew of anti Trooning articles in the press today. May the pendulum swing hard
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2023
They want to create chaos and disorder because they are sons of their father the devil.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2019
Hahahaha my god he’s so funny
More than NHS and police
Government even. Many MPs are stonewall pushers which is why Johnny was crying about Wes Streeting.
They are heavily involved with the SNP
They even had some involvement (along with the AGP on the “women’s council”) for the remove the word mother referendum in Ireland.
I imagine this isn’t over for Stonewall, sadly.
The usual Labour MP lunatics like Annalise Dodds and Nadia Whittmore will be pushing Stonewall bullshit the minute the dust is settled.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2021
It makes me wonder if there are some lesser known or unpublished studies or material coming, something that shows a real stark set of negative outcomes. We've seen some studies so far but nothing that I would expect to generate this sort of reversal, but this feels like an organization trying to do damage control and get itself on the right side of some revelation coming down the pipe.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2019
We can but hope. I think some of it is the increasing public scrutiny - most people don’t know much about it all and default to ‘live and let live’ but once they actually see it they’re horrified. But it’s not all that. I honestly don’t know
King Koopa
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2021
Might have something to do with the fact that adult gender clinics refused to work with Cass on the review, leading NHS England to launch a review themselves. NHS said they're fully intending to force clinics to give up the patient data.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2021
A lot of people don't know this, but Stonewall used to be considered transphobic.
Link. Basically, up until 2015 Stonewall was an LGB organisation and very specifically did not talk about transgender issues on the basis that it was something entirely separate to sexuality, and would point to the existence of groups like Press For Change and Gendered Intelligence, which were T with no LGB. Stonewall was set up in the 80s to oppose Section 28, and had always just been about rights for lesbians and gays. Their awards got protested a couple of times, because they were giving recognition to people like Julie Bindel (who'd written articles calling transition surgery mutiliation and interviewing detransitioners).
But after 2014 when civil and religious marriages were legalised for same sex couples, there weren't any more "big ticket" issues for Stonewall to focus on (although they were a bit funny about supporting that push). Ben Summerskill stepped down as CEO at the time - he'd been in charge since the repeal of Section 28 and had been firm that the scope of the organisation was just "gay men, lesbians and bisexuals" - so his deputy Ruth Hunt took over as interim CEO while the board looked for a permanent replacement. Ruth then announced they were going to do a consultation with transgender people and, following on from that, announced Stonewall was going to be LGBT moving forward. This wasn't popular; some of the founders wrote publicly objecting to this move and eventually pressure forced her out.
The organisation I helped found has lost its way since winning gay equality and is mired in an issue that isn’t its concern
Imagine (in my case the effort is minimal) you are a gay man, and open about it. Thirty years ago this would have brought huge difficulties, attracted hostility, excluded you from many careers, and made you feel almost an exile in your own country.
Things have changed — and how! Broadly speaking life in Britain has been normalised for you. Yes, you may still face raised eyebrows and residual prejudice; there remain anomalies and you’re aware there’s further progress to be made in shifting attitudes in (for instance) schools, churches, ethnic minority communities and the world of sport. But frankly these are details. Today you can marry, be a tinker, tailor, soldier, spy. Or MP. There’s no crushing sense of victimisation. You do not feel society is against you.
You hear talk of “identities” but your gay identity overlaps with so many others you feel that it needn’t define you. Nevertheless, as “a member of the gay community” (a fiction that can make you grind your teeth) you may feel there’s still a need for an organisation to speak up for gay men and lesbian women’s rights and needs: to do “outreach” work in British schools and workplaces, and maybe abroad where your fellowgays still face the gallows. You might join and pay your subs to such an organisation.
I did — until last year. I was one of that organisation’s fourteen founders. Stonewall, formed on May 24, 1989, was set up during the furore over Section 28 of the local government act, engineered by a Tory government to ban the “promotion” of homosexuality. Most of us founders had been part of an ad-hoc group to oppose the legislation. I remember well the windowless little lounge where previously we’d met in the gay nightclub, Heaven, under the railway arches at London’s Charing Cross station. We were the guests of its proprietor, Richard Branson. I remember the advice and support we got from outsiders like Peter Mandelson, and our sorrowful defiance when Section 28 became law. A defiance that led to that gathering on May 24.
I remember, too, the sense of solidarity between stalwarts such as Ian McKellen (kindly, conciliatory and shrewd) and Lisa Power (punchy, motherly and fun). I remember Michael Cashman (he of the first gay kiss in EastEnders): thoughtful, civil, and empathetic. We didn’t always agree on aims (I was for reducing the age of male homosexual consent from 21 to 18; the majority were for full equality at 16, so 16 it was) but the big thing we wanted — for gay men and lesbian women to come out of the shadows and into the sun — was so clear and strong that our differences melted in its glare. We rented a little office, engaged a CEO, and Stonewall was launched.
Monday marks the 32nd anniversary of that Wednesday in 1989. But Stonewall has lost its way. The sun we all thought we saw has gone behind clouds of anger, intolerance and partisanship. The organisation is tangled up in the trans issue, cornered into an extremist stance on a debate that a charity formed to help gay men, lesbian women and bisexual people should never have got itself into.
You may have seen the latest on this in The Times on Thursday (“Stonewall ‘gave bad advice’ to university in free speech row”). A nasty little spat. After complaints from students, and advice from Stonewall, Essex University “cancelled” appearances by two outside professors in the fields on which they were to speak: two women whose opinions students claimed were “transphobic”. The university has now been advised by Akua Reindorf, an investigating barrister, to review its relationship with Stonewall, which, she said, “appears to have given university members the impression that gender critical academics can legitimately be excluded from the institution”.
What is the charity I helped to found doing, getting entangled in attempts to deny free speech at a university? This column should avoid getting into the trans debate itself. My single, tight focus is on this question: why Stonewall?
There’s something perversely 20th-century about linking gays to trans. Gay men do not want to be women. We like being men. I doubt that being a lesbian is about not wanting to be a woman. Our issues have nothing to do with identification or changing our bodies: we know what we are and nobody disputes it. Most gay men would strongly resist the suggestion we’re boys who want to be girls. I can’t think of anything I’d like less. The whole history of the gay liberation movement is inseparable from what people do rather than what they are. Central to trans concerns is being, not doing. The one thing that links gays and lesbians with trans people is empathy with anyone excluded, oppressed, marginalised or rejected. Indeed this was what influenced some gay groups into supporting the 1984-5 miners’ strike, and Stonewall was perhaps drawn into the trans arguments because a group was fighting for what it considers to be its rights.
But this has led it straight into a confrontation with another such group: feminists. Stonewall should have stood clear. Now it seems to have dived into the judicial issue of whether would-be trans children can consent to chemical or surgical intervention. This is not something on which gays, lesbians or bisexuals can speak with greater authority than any other citizen. I repeat: it has nothing to do with us.
Perhaps the truth is that, after success in our great 20th-century drive for equality, Stonewall was left with bricks and mortar, an admirable staff, a CEO and a fund-raising team and, unconsciously, craved another big, newsworthy cause. Well, sometimes a big army with only small battles to fight does best simply to scale back. I know many gay men have become embarrassed by Stonewall and see (as I do) the paradox that some of its activities are actually damaging the standing of the gay community. We don’t want to be associated with sallies in the trans wars. We want to feel proud, not hurt, not victims. Trans people cannot yet feel that: they need a support group. But that’s for them. Gays (to use the lingo) should not be colonising their issues.
I’ve mentioned on these pages before a new Stonewall initiative, entitled “Decolonising Queer Leadership Programme”, a “3-part programme for LGBT people of colour, who want to develop their skills in creating lasting change in their communities and build collective power through challenging society’s constructed power norms”.
Ye gods, how did we get here?
Imagine (in my case the effort is minimal) you are a gay man, and open about it. Thirty years ago this would have brought huge difficulties, attracted hostility, excluded you from many careers, and made you feel almost an exile in your own country.
Things have changed — and how! Broadly speaking life in Britain has been normalised for you. Yes, you may still face raised eyebrows and residual prejudice; there remain anomalies and you’re aware there’s further progress to be made in shifting attitudes in (for instance) schools, churches, ethnic minority communities and the world of sport. But frankly these are details. Today you can marry, be a tinker, tailor, soldier, spy. Or MP. There’s no crushing sense of victimisation. You do not feel society is against you.
You hear talk of “identities” but your gay identity overlaps with so many others you feel that it needn’t define you. Nevertheless, as “a member of the gay community” (a fiction that can make you grind your teeth) you may feel there’s still a need for an organisation to speak up for gay men and lesbian women’s rights and needs: to do “outreach” work in British schools and workplaces, and maybe abroad where your fellowgays still face the gallows. You might join and pay your subs to such an organisation.
I did — until last year. I was one of that organisation’s fourteen founders. Stonewall, formed on May 24, 1989, was set up during the furore over Section 28 of the local government act, engineered by a Tory government to ban the “promotion” of homosexuality. Most of us founders had been part of an ad-hoc group to oppose the legislation. I remember well the windowless little lounge where previously we’d met in the gay nightclub, Heaven, under the railway arches at London’s Charing Cross station. We were the guests of its proprietor, Richard Branson. I remember the advice and support we got from outsiders like Peter Mandelson, and our sorrowful defiance when Section 28 became law. A defiance that led to that gathering on May 24.
I remember, too, the sense of solidarity between stalwarts such as Ian McKellen (kindly, conciliatory and shrewd) and Lisa Power (punchy, motherly and fun). I remember Michael Cashman (he of the first gay kiss in EastEnders): thoughtful, civil, and empathetic. We didn’t always agree on aims (I was for reducing the age of male homosexual consent from 21 to 18; the majority were for full equality at 16, so 16 it was) but the big thing we wanted — for gay men and lesbian women to come out of the shadows and into the sun — was so clear and strong that our differences melted in its glare. We rented a little office, engaged a CEO, and Stonewall was launched.
Monday marks the 32nd anniversary of that Wednesday in 1989. But Stonewall has lost its way. The sun we all thought we saw has gone behind clouds of anger, intolerance and partisanship. The organisation is tangled up in the trans issue, cornered into an extremist stance on a debate that a charity formed to help gay men, lesbian women and bisexual people should never have got itself into.
You may have seen the latest on this in The Times on Thursday (“Stonewall ‘gave bad advice’ to university in free speech row”). A nasty little spat. After complaints from students, and advice from Stonewall, Essex University “cancelled” appearances by two outside professors in the fields on which they were to speak: two women whose opinions students claimed were “transphobic”. The university has now been advised by Akua Reindorf, an investigating barrister, to review its relationship with Stonewall, which, she said, “appears to have given university members the impression that gender critical academics can legitimately be excluded from the institution”.
What is the charity I helped to found doing, getting entangled in attempts to deny free speech at a university? This column should avoid getting into the trans debate itself. My single, tight focus is on this question: why Stonewall?
There’s something perversely 20th-century about linking gays to trans. Gay men do not want to be women. We like being men. I doubt that being a lesbian is about not wanting to be a woman. Our issues have nothing to do with identification or changing our bodies: we know what we are and nobody disputes it. Most gay men would strongly resist the suggestion we’re boys who want to be girls. I can’t think of anything I’d like less. The whole history of the gay liberation movement is inseparable from what people do rather than what they are. Central to trans concerns is being, not doing. The one thing that links gays and lesbians with trans people is empathy with anyone excluded, oppressed, marginalised or rejected. Indeed this was what influenced some gay groups into supporting the 1984-5 miners’ strike, and Stonewall was perhaps drawn into the trans arguments because a group was fighting for what it considers to be its rights.
But this has led it straight into a confrontation with another such group: feminists. Stonewall should have stood clear. Now it seems to have dived into the judicial issue of whether would-be trans children can consent to chemical or surgical intervention. This is not something on which gays, lesbians or bisexuals can speak with greater authority than any other citizen. I repeat: it has nothing to do with us.
Perhaps the truth is that, after success in our great 20th-century drive for equality, Stonewall was left with bricks and mortar, an admirable staff, a CEO and a fund-raising team and, unconsciously, craved another big, newsworthy cause. Well, sometimes a big army with only small battles to fight does best simply to scale back. I know many gay men have become embarrassed by Stonewall and see (as I do) the paradox that some of its activities are actually damaging the standing of the gay community. We don’t want to be associated with sallies in the trans wars. We want to feel proud, not hurt, not victims. Trans people cannot yet feel that: they need a support group. But that’s for them. Gays (to use the lingo) should not be colonising their issues.
I’ve mentioned on these pages before a new Stonewall initiative, entitled “Decolonising Queer Leadership Programme”, a “3-part programme for LGBT people of colour, who want to develop their skills in creating lasting change in their communities and build collective power through challenging society’s constructed power norms”.
Ye gods, how did we get here?
I guess there's some sane people still working there. The "L" in this case is trans people tweeting in shock about Stonewall, completely unaware that Stonewall being trans activists is very recent (because these trans people were heterosexual men in 2015 and didn't know anything about LGBT because they were working as computer programmers). Also some of the stuff Stonewall have said is stuff that trans people in the UK were tweeting when the Cass Review was announced - smugposting about how this would mean less barriers thanks to the regional model over Tavistock etc (they've since changed their tune)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2023
Just a point about "conversion therapy".
Conversion therapy (so called by its proponents) was using "operant conditioning" (Clockwork Orange methods) to cure homosexuality. It was proven not to work. It's total quackery at this point, and it's good to ban it.
Talking a kid out of getting castrated is not "conversion therapy".
The whole "conversion therapy" question applied to trans is more trans deception.
Nothing they say can be taken at face value.
Conversion therapy (so called by its proponents) was using "operant conditioning" (Clockwork Orange methods) to cure homosexuality. It was proven not to work. It's total quackery at this point, and it's good to ban it.
Talking a kid out of getting castrated is not "conversion therapy".
The whole "conversion therapy" question applied to trans is more trans deception.
Nothing they say can be taken at face value.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2021
Is the leftover 1 % for dialating?
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2024
I like how you emphasized circumcision, as if skinning the tip of a baby's cock for the big man upstairs isn't genital mutilation.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2019
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2021
Yeah let's be honest, it may be less invasive as procedure but it is a fucked up blind spot in society. Especially when non-Jews do it because of Victorian-era medical quackery and anti-masturbation obsession.
You can condition someone into having an aversion of specific sexual acts and stimulus. It just also involves torture so extreme it will break them psychologically. I guess it's an open question as to whether or not that counts as changing an orientation.
But yes, they love bringing up conversion therapy as a symbol of oppression. I have seen troons suggest that attempts to try and make people with GID comfortable with their own bodies, just making them sit and confront their discomfort (which can work with things like anorexia) is conversion therapy.
The actual reality is exactly the opposite right now, the public at large has pretty much agreed that you don't need to beat the fag out of little Timmy if he wants to play with Barbies or whatever. Gender variant behaviour is much more acceptable in children than it was previously, which is a good thing. Nothing is preventing a trans person from being trans, it's literally just the suggestion of making these extreme medical decisions after careful review that is treated as akin to torture.
King Koopa
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2021
I'm going to be honest, I think having a newborns foreskin cut off (which has been done for thousands of years, instead of being pioneered in the mid 20th century) is quite a bit different than a teenager having their breasts cut off, or having their penis inverted into a permanent wound.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2023
Trans people making their own spaces? Not taking something that someone else already made for themselves, and demanding to be accommodated, often with the implicit threat of violence should they not acquiesce?
Are they capable of such a thing?
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2021
If their reluctance to date each other is any indication, no.