Culture Tranny News Megathread - Hot tranny newds
- Thread starter trannyfucker
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2015
In a way it sounds like this book is everything that the seriously hostile TERFs said about troons. Suprise, suprise..Gather around because we need to talk about a publication that has been discussed here before, the book Fucking Trans Women by Mira Bellwether. TL;DR review: it's terrible. We're talking about "I can see Leah Tverly blasting this book for an hour in a video" terrible.
Background: an SJW British Youtuber called "PhilosophyTube" made a video titled Queer where he told his fans to get this book. One of his fans got the book and posted some excerpts to /r/MensLib LMAO:
r/MensLib - I highly recommend everyone to check Fucking Trans Women (a book recommended in PhilosophyTube's latest video). Some excerpts! [x-post from r/Breadtube]
732 votes and 110 comments so far on Redditwww.reddit.com
Contrary to what he claims, these excerpts posted to imgur are not SFW at all, all include explicit descriptions of sexual acts using sexual slang so click at your own risk, you've been warned. I am placing everything behind a spoiler without any embeds.
First of all, I am not lambasting this book because trannies might need a book to figure out how to have sex, if any, post-HRT/SRS. There seems to be a huge demand for this book amongst trannies - which IMO is an indication of what their sex lives are like post-HRT/SRS despite all their sexual braggadocio in the social media - so if this book helps someone actually get laid, more power to them I guess. I am rather lambasting PhilosophyTube's suggestion that cis people should use this book as an instruction manual for having sex with trannies. It's like giving a copy of The Lesbian Sex Guide to some virginal straight guy and saying, "here, this'll teach you how to fuq a woman right.". That's not how it works IRL. If sex is not more simple and straight-forward, no one is gonna fuq anyone. If you need an instruction manual ("with diagrams!", enthused PhilosophyTube) to fuq anyone, well, to quote Nyk's cousin Pink, "listen up, it's just not happening.". Even women, who unlike men need more preparatory work and lengthier courtship, they too actually want that to be simple and straight-forward. "It's complicated" is a major turn-off for the overwhelming majority of humans, male or female.
Especially cis women - who can and do get pregnant and have 100% legit questions about birth control - they should not be reading a book that mindfucks them and guilt-trips them into thinking that it's rude to ask a pre-op trannie about whether they can get them pregnant "because that question about my sperm load gives me gender dysphoria."
"... wait a minute, WTF?", you ask, ladies. "That's in this book?"
I kid you not, there's a passage in this book that says pretty much exactly that. That passage is followed with the author disavowing what he just said a moment before and insisting that he "really truly does practice safer sex always", but that disavowal and reassurance is hardly believable after what precipitated it and IMO plainly smacks of a mindfuck played on the reader. But more on that later.
Since I made fun of the book without having read it, I decided to have a look at the SFW (yeah right) parts that this person posted to Reddit so that I can more solidly criticize it:
"Oh honeyyy hon, can I lick your... uh... um... hmmm... um... can I just point at the... um... the thing? You know, the thing there? That thing there. The thing I wanna lick, can I lick it? What did you say there? Oh, you want me to lick the... um... the other thing? This thing or that?"
(Getting horny yet people? All those years you wasted learning how to dirty-talk and call things by their name only to end up being told by the SJW cult that you can't use names in the bedroom anymore...)
Look dude, if you close your eyes everything feels great... until you open them the next morning and realize who you're with and what you've done and regret washes over you like a cold shower. What do sexologists always tell their clients with sex problems? You need to learn to have sex sober with your eyes open and the lights on.
That sounds gross, consumeristic, objectifying and cannibalistic AND it reminds me of this Russian TERF comics that all the SJWs on Twitter got their pants in a bunch about a few years back:
View attachment 1059056 View attachment 1059079
Human beings are not a plate of soup or a piece of cherry pie.
That's literally the contents of every other Dr Ruth sex book on the shelf of your local book chain, so why would anyone bother with this book over those other books? Oh, I get it, Dr Ruth uses the names of things and that's verboten by the cult.
Ah, now I get it! This book is basically one of those scams where others write the actual content but the editor pretends that they are the auteur of it all just because they compiled other people's input into a book.
Let's look at the next page:
"Instruction manual"? As in "RTFM"? OK, this book was compiled by an AGP for sure. I know this because I read that other book (that troons don't want you to read). That other book, which is immensely more informative than this one here when it comes to giving you an understanding the sex lives of transwomen, said this:
View attachment 1059099
LMAO, so this book is basically the printed version of every "He Didn't Know I Was Trans" video on Youtube. If you've never seen one of those videos, every Youtube vlog account that is some trannie's transition timeline will basically have at least one of those videos within the first six months of their transition. It's almost like an obligatory rite of passage for transwomen to make such a video about how they passed so well that they managed to seduce some unsuspecting man. Not all HDKIWT videos are NSFW though, some are relatively tame with the protagonist only getting kissed and groped but breaking loose before something more compromising could occur, some are more explicit with the eventual grand piece de resistance, the big gender reveal moment that the story arch is inevitably working towards.
So this is where shit like "girldick" and "mouthfeel" came from? This book here? LMAO, I can imagine having to invent words when you've told your lovers not to use the existing ones. You'll be receiving the Enochian Keys from the Transgender Angels like John Dee next.
But the cold hard fact is it does work like a penis a lot of the time. That's why born women don't want you in their changing rooms, and that's why you SJWs keep lying about how all transwomen are either post-op (they're not, most are pre-op or non-operative) and when called out on that lie, you insist that all transwomen have killed their dick with HRT and can't get it up. 30%-40% of transwomen openly admit they still practice penetrative sex, either PiM or PiV or PiA. The fact a lot of you have killed your dick with HRT and can't get it up anymore doesn't discount the fact that at least one in three of you can still get erections. Just stop lying about this, not matter how many people you ban on Twitter everyone and their mother can look up those studies for themselves.
That's exactly what I did, hon: the studies say that many of you can still have your dicks and can still get them up and running. This is why women don't want you in their changing rooms. Because your dicks work like dicks. Stop lying about this.
Yes, I've seen that movie too.
View attachment 1059059
That a was pre-HRT video, BTW.
Nyk's post-HRT doctor character is boring.
Next page:
LMAO, here you go people, they can't avoid admitting it. Transwomen can get it up just like any man.
I know a word for this. It's called a mindfuck. So, you can't fuck a trannie unless they and you suffer from verbal diarrhea during sex? How sexee and arousing! By the end of this book, you might as well become a sex line operator while you're at it.
But it's not a clit. It doesn't even remotely work like one. For example, a clitoris retracts if it's overstimulated (oral sex directly on the clitoris is actually painful for some women). No dick ever does that. Clearly the author of this book doesn't know this either or they would never make such a ridiculous statement. You cannot treat a dick like a clit.
Ladies and gentlemen, there you go, they openly admit this shit in their own writings. They just lie to your faces about it because they think you're stupid and gullible.
Because that thing ain't lubricating out of itself, apparently. I thought the magic of peritoneal grafts took care of that? I guess that technique was only popularized after this book or something.
And reading a sex book - that is hopefully filled with something other than meaningless tired old clichés such as this - is about learning something you didn't know yet. Otherwise what's the point?
And another page:
Definitely this book was put together by an old AGP because it a younger trannie had editted it, those comics would be manga for sure.
Y'all gonna love this part:
... where the plastic surgeon cut out the piece of colon that was used to line the internet's neovaginal cavity, back before peritoneal grafts became all the rage... (shhh, you fucker, don't name things)
Nothing turns me on like quotation marks being used around the word "memes" to express derision and rejection.
See? I told you guys, you're gonna love this part.
This sentence is not English. Rephrase please.
"A photo can be a trap"? No honey, the person on the picture is a trap. Your rage bait is preventing you from thinking logically here.
Wow, am I seeing a SWERF argument here? This is what anti-porn radical feminists have been saying for years, that images of women can be pornographic whether that woman in the picture is dressed up or naked, engaged in an explicit sexual act or not. So trannie agrees with that statement? Look at, trannie and radfems finally agree on something.
Yet all these transwomen who so aggressively reject the term trap have never actually been called one because they just don't pass well enough to be considered one. Like I said, this book has most likely been assembled by an older AGP, so inevitably there was going to be a jab at younger HSTS who pass well and are considered traps by their chasers. This page is basically it.
What did I tell you about this book being written by an older AGP mad sad at all the younger HSTS traps? Here you go. Younger trannies have no idea who the fuck that is. They don't read fictional books about trannies, they watch Youtube videos with actual trannies.
View attachment 1059074
This last page is the worst of the worst. TERFs and safer sex enthusiasts, this is the part you've been waiting for:
Dude, that's a rather roundabout (read: another mindfuck) way of saying: "You can use your trans status as an excuse to avoid wearing a condom/having safer sex.". Just STFU and just put a condom on that dick already. You can catch some scary shit from a woman too, you dumbass. "A real man will use one, a real woman doesn't have to ask."
... Oliver actually endorses this? This anti-birth control bullshit? This anti-safer sex shit? This is now the new left? The new left is about using transness as an excuse to avoid discussing birth control? A biological woman asking a biological man with a dick, "hey dude, can you actually, you know, get me knocked up while on HRT? Do you still have a high sperm load?" as part of safer sex negotiations, that's transphobic now?
#PEAKTRANSING so hard right now, bitches. (You really don't wanna see this, believe me, it's not as sexy as it sounds.)
I have never before seen transness being used as an excuse for such blatant unsafe sex and anti-birthcontrol regressiveness. I can't believe SJW TRAs would sink that low, but there you have it.
No, bitch, you don't. This is the "(describing rape) what I just described isn't actually rape" fake disclaimer of your text. Everything you just described previously was about how you use your transness to avoid discussing safer sex, ie birth control. Telling cis women to not ask you about whether you can get them knocked up with your "radioactive" jizz is not "practicing safer sex", it's the very opposite of that. It's mindfucking cis women into having unsafe sex with you and other pre-ops by man-whining about how discussions of pregnancy and being asked to use condoms to dispose of your "radiactive waste" (LMAO) supposedly makes you feel dysphoric. You are a manipulator and a mindfucker, if this is how you roll in bed. And once again you dumbass, YOU YOURSELF can catch some really scary shit from an infected woman too if you don't put a condom on that dick, regardless of the HRT affecting your sperm load. How stupid can you be?
Let's end this with Mira Bellwether's favourite song, shall we:
Seriously, how the fuck are Leah Tverly & Co not all over this? This shit is the worst cotton ceiling bullshit I've read since Riley Dennis accusing women of being transphobic for not wanting to suq the girldiq.
This is the "author" of the book BTW - can you imagine them rolling on a condom? Neither can I for some strange reason...
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2018
With apologies to Lil B
Cunt:
DIAF:
TERF bitch:
Dropkick a bitch:
Choke on it:
Suck various dicks:
DIAF:
TERF bitch:
Dropkick a bitch:
Choke on it:
Suck various dicks:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Bunch of real "women" here yelling "muh dick" at a woman.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2016
Nice of the men to come out and tell a woman what to think. Notice how they are especially violent/vicious, when it's a female stating something? Imagine the shock.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2018
This is like that billboard with the dictionary definition of 'woman' being pulled down for hate-speech. Something this basic and literally accurate is being turned into a 'murder all trannies' message, because these people are insane.
The proper response seems to be to report their tweets for threats and post some of their favourite responses, like 'Die mad about it,' and 'I don't make the rules, hon,' to rub it in. Because this salt is glorious. And NPC troons getting BTFO is a delight.
I mean, seriously. 'I learned morals from the Harry Potter books!', 'Polyjuice potion was already transphobic!' It's complete
and I'm looking forward to sending it all to anyone who even thinks of attacking Rowling for it.
The proper response seems to be to report their tweets for threats and post some of their favourite responses, like 'Die mad about it,' and 'I don't make the rules, hon,' to rub it in. Because this salt is glorious. And NPC troons getting BTFO is a delight.
I mean, seriously. 'I learned morals from the Harry Potter books!', 'Polyjuice potion was already transphobic!' It's complete
and I'm looking forward to sending it all to anyone who even thinks of attacking Rowling for it.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2014
Another piece of evidence that it doesn't take much brains to be a medical doctor; just the ability to memorize and regurgitate facts (or "facts" like "trans women are women" a "trans rights are human rights")
I'll give this argument a hoot if they can show me which chromosome turned Yaniv into the woman he is.
Any MD or PhD who yammers about genes when talking about transgenders should be asked, "which gene made Bruce Jenner utter 'call me Caitlyn'?"
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2019
"Suck my dick" -- spoken like true and honest women. Such feminists!
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
They're so dysphoric, so horrified by being in the wrong body that they want to kill themselves, yet just can't stop constantly talking about their dicks and how they want to stick them in real women.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
I used to think "toxic masculinity" was just some made up bullshit to shame men... and then troons happened and proved it is very real.
Something...something... true and honest *lesbians*
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2016
I find it interesting that as soon as the push against normal men being "toxic" kinda died down, they diverted course towards silencing females. It was like a tag team. Say male behaviour is toxic, then bam, straight onto erasing women.
What's unfortunate is that the right will squeak about how terrible leftist feminists are, but never talk with the same vigour in regards to MRAs/Incels. They don't understand the reality that all of this is designed to destroy natural order.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
GLAAD: J.K. Rowling’s Support of Anti-Trans Researcher ‘Puts Trans People at Risk’
J.K. Rowling’s support of U.K. researcher Maya Forstater — who was fired for anti-trans tweets — “puts trans people at risk,” says Anthony Ramos, head of talent at LGBTQ rights or…
variety.com
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2017
re: dialing back, I saw a response JK made to someone who said they were going to burn all their potter books, dvds and merch. JK said basically, i already have your money and that will be bad for the environment but if you insist, would you like to borrow my lighter?
she's going full terf, dialing nothing back. even jezehell is tiptoeing around calling her cancelled she's so beloved.
she's going full terf, dialing nothing back. even jezehell is tiptoeing around calling her cancelled she's so beloved.
Xiphias
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2019
Brave new world for women, if anyone can join
HOLLY LAWFORD-SMITH
tl;dr: The judge ruled that Maya Forstater's belief satisfied all tests for a protected philosophical belief except the "human rights" one. And Victoria's self-id law will go into effect May 2020.
HOLLY LAWFORD-SMITH
The belief that people can’t change their sex is “absolutist” and “incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others”.
That is the ruling just made by a UK employment tribunal judge in the case of a woman denied work over “offensive” tweets. The judge also declared “not worthy of respect in a democratic society” the belief that a person born male is not (and cannot become) a woman.
And, incredibly, lack of belief in gender understood as identity does not give protection from discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The judgment is bad news for the claimant, Maya Forstater, and more broadly for people everywhere who are sceptical of the new gender ideology.
Across several countries, a war over words is raging: what is a woman? This question led to angry protests at the University of Melbourne this year when the Victorian Women’s Guild hosted an event to discuss Victorian legislation proposing to make “woman” a category anyone can identify into, by making legal sex a matter of mere statutory declaration. Those opposing the bill argued it undermined women’s spaces and services, while those supporting the bill hailed it as a progressive step in the fight for trans rights. The bill passed and comes into effect by May next year. In Victoria, a woman will be anyone who declares themselves one.
Similar legislation has been proposed in New Zealand and the UK, leading to vociferous debate over the meanings of female and woman and the concepts of sex and/or gender they refer to.
Women are fighting not only against legislation that fundamentally changes what it means to be a woman (from a biological fact to an identity category) but against surreal attempts at policing their political and philosophical beliefs about womanhood and feminism.
Women expressing what have come to be known as “gender-critical” beliefs — chief among them the belief that a woman is an adult human female — are now routinely subject to social media pile-ons, letters of complaint to employers, the posting online of private details to expose them to more harassment, and worse. For “misgendering” (using sexed pronouns for a trans person), “deadnaming” (referring to a trans person by their former name), and using allegedly offensive terms, women in the UK have been subject to police interview or investigation. Twitter bans the accounts of women who use the wrong pronouns for trans people. But the gender wars had yet to be fought in a courtroom. This changed with the crowd-funded Forstater case.
Forstater’s beliefs about what a woman is brought her into conflict with her employer and led to her not being offered another contract with the London-based Centre for Global Development. She was working for the centre during the period of public consultation over changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and tweeted openly about her opposition to it.
The GRA awards applicants with a Gender Recognition Certificate, effectively changing their legal sex. Successful applications currently require a diagnosis of gender dysphoria (or discomfort with one’s body), and evidence of having lived in the “acquired gender” for at least two years. The proposal was to change this to a single-step statutory declaration or “self-identification”. This divorces the concept of sex from a physiological reality and turns it into an identity. This is the change made in Tasmania and Victoria; British women were able to mobilise a more effective resistance.
Forstater opposed the reforms to the GRA on the grounds that it is impossible to change sex, that sex is politically important and should not be conflated with gender identity, and that the reforms would be likely to undermine the provision of women-only spaces, services, and protections by making them de facto mixed-sex. She said in her live evidence that she did not consider a Gender Recognition Certificate to make a significant difference to the importance of sex classification. In her witness statement, she wrote that “avoiding upsetting males is not a reason to compromise women’s safety, dignity and ability to control their own boundaries as to who gets to see and touch their bodies”.
The judge’s decision hinged on the balance between freedom of expression and protection of belief, on the one hand, and protection of rights and dignity, on the other. He granted that Forstater’s understanding of sex and gender, and her conception of a woman, counted as a “philosophical belief” on four out of five of the “Grainger” criteria established by a 2010 case of that name. These are that the belief is genuinely held; is a belief rather than an opinion or viewpoint; is about a weighty or substantial aspect of human life; and attains a level of seriousness and importance.
But he denied the belief met the fifth criterion, namely “it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the human rights of others”. Forstater’s beliefs were found to be incompatible with the human dignity and fundamental rights of others (implicitly, of transwomen). Thus her beliefs ultimately do not count as a philosophical belief and are not protected by the Equality Act 2010.
The implications of this case in the UK are that women may be fired for expressing gender-critical beliefs. Forstater’s claim was that her employer had engaged in direct discrimination on the basis of her philosophical beliefs, and indirect discrimination on the basis of sex (women are more likely to hold gender-critical views). The judge found against her, which means there is now a precedent for this kind of discrimination.
In the UK, where there is still some gatekeeping around legal change of sex, this leaves room for the expression of scepticism about the status of merely self-declared transwomen as being women. But were judges in Victoria or Tasmania to follow suit, the implications could be totalitarian indeed, given that legal change of sex in those states is possible on the basis of declaration alone. Do we really want to live in a society in which women can be fired from their jobs for denying that a 6 foot 2 inch bearded male is a woman?
That is the ruling just made by a UK employment tribunal judge in the case of a woman denied work over “offensive” tweets. The judge also declared “not worthy of respect in a democratic society” the belief that a person born male is not (and cannot become) a woman.
And, incredibly, lack of belief in gender understood as identity does not give protection from discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The judgment is bad news for the claimant, Maya Forstater, and more broadly for people everywhere who are sceptical of the new gender ideology.
Across several countries, a war over words is raging: what is a woman? This question led to angry protests at the University of Melbourne this year when the Victorian Women’s Guild hosted an event to discuss Victorian legislation proposing to make “woman” a category anyone can identify into, by making legal sex a matter of mere statutory declaration. Those opposing the bill argued it undermined women’s spaces and services, while those supporting the bill hailed it as a progressive step in the fight for trans rights. The bill passed and comes into effect by May next year. In Victoria, a woman will be anyone who declares themselves one.
Similar legislation has been proposed in New Zealand and the UK, leading to vociferous debate over the meanings of female and woman and the concepts of sex and/or gender they refer to.
Women are fighting not only against legislation that fundamentally changes what it means to be a woman (from a biological fact to an identity category) but against surreal attempts at policing their political and philosophical beliefs about womanhood and feminism.
Women expressing what have come to be known as “gender-critical” beliefs — chief among them the belief that a woman is an adult human female — are now routinely subject to social media pile-ons, letters of complaint to employers, the posting online of private details to expose them to more harassment, and worse. For “misgendering” (using sexed pronouns for a trans person), “deadnaming” (referring to a trans person by their former name), and using allegedly offensive terms, women in the UK have been subject to police interview or investigation. Twitter bans the accounts of women who use the wrong pronouns for trans people. But the gender wars had yet to be fought in a courtroom. This changed with the crowd-funded Forstater case.
Forstater’s beliefs about what a woman is brought her into conflict with her employer and led to her not being offered another contract with the London-based Centre for Global Development. She was working for the centre during the period of public consultation over changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and tweeted openly about her opposition to it.
The GRA awards applicants with a Gender Recognition Certificate, effectively changing their legal sex. Successful applications currently require a diagnosis of gender dysphoria (or discomfort with one’s body), and evidence of having lived in the “acquired gender” for at least two years. The proposal was to change this to a single-step statutory declaration or “self-identification”. This divorces the concept of sex from a physiological reality and turns it into an identity. This is the change made in Tasmania and Victoria; British women were able to mobilise a more effective resistance.
Forstater opposed the reforms to the GRA on the grounds that it is impossible to change sex, that sex is politically important and should not be conflated with gender identity, and that the reforms would be likely to undermine the provision of women-only spaces, services, and protections by making them de facto mixed-sex. She said in her live evidence that she did not consider a Gender Recognition Certificate to make a significant difference to the importance of sex classification. In her witness statement, she wrote that “avoiding upsetting males is not a reason to compromise women’s safety, dignity and ability to control their own boundaries as to who gets to see and touch their bodies”.
The judge’s decision hinged on the balance between freedom of expression and protection of belief, on the one hand, and protection of rights and dignity, on the other. He granted that Forstater’s understanding of sex and gender, and her conception of a woman, counted as a “philosophical belief” on four out of five of the “Grainger” criteria established by a 2010 case of that name. These are that the belief is genuinely held; is a belief rather than an opinion or viewpoint; is about a weighty or substantial aspect of human life; and attains a level of seriousness and importance.
But he denied the belief met the fifth criterion, namely “it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the human rights of others”. Forstater’s beliefs were found to be incompatible with the human dignity and fundamental rights of others (implicitly, of transwomen). Thus her beliefs ultimately do not count as a philosophical belief and are not protected by the Equality Act 2010.
The implications of this case in the UK are that women may be fired for expressing gender-critical beliefs. Forstater’s claim was that her employer had engaged in direct discrimination on the basis of her philosophical beliefs, and indirect discrimination on the basis of sex (women are more likely to hold gender-critical views). The judge found against her, which means there is now a precedent for this kind of discrimination.
In the UK, where there is still some gatekeeping around legal change of sex, this leaves room for the expression of scepticism about the status of merely self-declared transwomen as being women. But were judges in Victoria or Tasmania to follow suit, the implications could be totalitarian indeed, given that legal change of sex in those states is possible on the basis of declaration alone. Do we really want to live in a society in which women can be fired from their jobs for denying that a 6 foot 2 inch bearded male is a woman?
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2017
These jokes were funnier when they were /tv/ shitposts about Dumbledore being a Holocaust denier and not pearl-clutching losers being passive-aggressive about Rowling committing wrong-think.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2018
As autistic as this sounds, this tweet right here is literally a Fantastic Aesop.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
It's the basic critique of modernity by post-modernists. "Your model only works for nearly every single case so it's wrong and should be discarded in favor of.... no truth! (except racism/sexism/oppression)"
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Postmodernism was supposedly anti-establishment and now is the establishment and claims to be the objective reality it supposedly rejects. Absolutely none of your truths that worked sometimes for thousands of years mean shit because there's no objective reality and everything is a social construct.
Oh, except my opinions, they're absolute gospel truth and if you question them in any way you are a NAZI REEEEE REEEEE.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2014
Evil TERF Holly Lawford-Smith said:
Can any experts in Caliphate Law comment on the "Grainger" criteria? If someone is to assert that "men are not made individually by God but are the result of biological evolution", can others challenge this assertion on the ground that this is "incompatible with human dignity" and thus cannot be a genuine "philosophical belief"? The Wikipedia article (I know) on Grainger plc v Nicholson suggest that scientific beliefs are to be privileged over religious ones ("Darwinism would be included, even though it was entirely based on scientific conclusions. So if a belief was founded on science, not religion it would be protected"), but I can't see how science has anything to do with "human dignity", while religion has plenty.
Let's hope Grainger will be challenged when Muslims raise their grievance. ☪ against ☽.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2019
Although not as abundant as their male counterparts, honourable mention to the overcompensating trans-identified females tweeting her to suck their imaginary dicks.
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
has jk rowling's shit been posted yet. she killed a million trans people by saying it was wrong for a researcher to get fired by saying that people can't change their biological sex.
this is funny because of the hysterical reactions
this is funny because of the hysterical reactions