Back

@wikipedia @bubbline @NatureMC Well looking at the case I see it is exaggerated to the extremes, and also presents a lot of offensive approach from some non-binary(?) (or SJW?) people. Nobody seem to have tried to discuss anything, they just went on forcing their opinions down to others' throats.
I would be just nice if people (either minority or not) would learn to intelligently debate about their opinions. (And first familiarise themselves with what they're about to criticise.)

@grin

I, personally, wouldn't "both sides" it when a set of people whose human rights are under repeated and frequent assault are under attack by people who are strongly opposed to bodily autonomy.

I mean, if national newspapers declared that you were a paedophile and wiki put your picture in next to the definition, would you be calm about it? Just a bit of an exercise in empathy for you to consider why there might be ill-feeling and raised tempers.

@wikipedia @bubbline @NatureMC

@Homebrewandhacking @wikipedia @bubbline @NatureMC That's a lot of "what if"s.

I do not agree that anyone was under frequent and repeated assault. I do not see anyone publishing personal defamation.

I see a lot of people counterattacking aggressively based on a preceived attack I do not see to exist. Protecting their rights not being violated. And do an awful lot of name calling in the process.

@grin

Do you not have access to print or other mainstream media? Do you require specific people to be attacked to notice? Are you happy with the concept that racism can exist without attacking specific individuals? If so, then why not transphobia?

Do you understand that trans is a description? Or is that a slur as well?

Sorry to ask so many questions, I'm having real difficulty understanding why you don't understand.

@wikipedia @bubbline @NatureMC

@Homebrewandhacking @wikipedia @bubbline @NatureMC You are wrong. You mix up understanding with agreement.

Yes, I do require specific people to be attacked to accept a complaint about being attacked! Definitely.

Existing racism (or anything) is not a basis to request special handling in specific cases, nor to use it to justify your attacks.

I do not know whether there are people considering 'trans' a slur, why asking me? Ask the non-trans people being called so.

Any' else need explaining?

@grin

It seems like _your_ lack of agreement is pretty standard _chosen_ ignorance and bias. Your education and knowledge of this matter is woefully deficient. Woefully.

You're certainly demonstrating no "understanding" merely an inappropriate milquetoast both-sidesism. I'm not attacking you, I'm just bewildered by your confidence in this matter where you're clearly very wrong.

Certainly though, deliberate misunderstanding of my questions is disingenuous.

@wikipedia @bubbline @NatureMC

@Homebrewandhacking @wikipedia @bubbline @NatureMC You are also seriously mistaken about the way attacks work. Attacking someone then saying "I am not attacking you" does not revert it.
You know nothing about me, all your statements are based on your emotions, bias, ignorance and/or lack of will to listen.
Your loaded questions naturally didn't want any real answers, they were your projections with a question mark at the end.
It is kind of amusing to look how you chose to ignore to listen.

@Homebrewandhacking @wikipedia @bubbline @NatureMC

What you don't seem to understand, though, is that you cannot justify your wrongs (or request special rights) by citing generally existing attacks about a large group which you may or may not claim to be a member.

There was no specific attack. You see a thing and imagine that it could be an attack, so you take it as one, then base your whole argument on that assumption. "Attack until proven else." This will not work.

@Homebrewandhacking @wikipedia @bubbline @NatureMC Also I am sorry if someone, or someones have attacked you in your past or present. However you must not assume that _everyone_ want to attack you, and must not assume that everyone thinks about the same things you do.

Some people may attack you vor various reasons **NOT** related to your gender identity. They just do. Understand that, too.
Peace.

@Homebrewandhacking @grin @wikipedia @bubbline @NatureMC He's not transphobic at al. Saying that the term cis-gender is offensive is not an attack. It's not entirely a true statement as it's only offensive to a minority of people, but it is also not in any way an attack.

It's also not up to you to determine if somebody finds it offensive. It's up to them. In this case that means it's up to cis people to determine if that term is offensive. To most it is not but apparently to some it is.

@areyouevenreal @Homebrewandhacking @wikipedia @bubbline @NatureMC Interesting fact: I wouldn't even guessed it could be offensive until about a week ago, when I mentioned that (some) people may find any something offensive and this should be recognised, and the responses (probably from "noncis" people) almost always used the word "cis" as a slur and derogatory, offensive term, including me in a group of "obviously worthless people".
Very simliar to calling me "nazi".
And they don't see.