11 yr/old drag kid worshiped within LGBTQ community (Mod warning op)

klaaaz

Dante7 wrote: »

Latest research strongly disputes that. The idea that mammals can be born in the wrong body is tosh. It's just personality disorders for the genuine dysphoric. And as for the males with lippy, they are AGP getting their rocks off by wearing glitter and getting more horny by getting validation by being accepted in female only spaces. I'd be tempted to laugh it all off except I have a young daughter who will be forced to share spaces with these ghouls.

What research? And who you talking about "males with lippy getting their rocks off"?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I've noticed that nuance is not really your thing - so I exaggerate to make the point.......but it still floats on by, far overhead.

It's almost as if you're refusing to see the obvious!

Painting exaggerated extremes is not helping your point.

sbsquarepants

klaaaz wrote: »

Painting exaggerated extremes is not helping your point.

I don't think there is anything in the world which could help my point with you klaaaz - you've painted yourself into a corner with your clothes don't matter nonsense. You refuse to accept you could possibly be wrong, even in wildly exaggerated extreme circumstances.

You've been given a heap of examples where clothes clearly would matter to any half sane person and you just either pretend you don't see it or deflect with some obtuse non answer bullshít.

In short klaaaz, you are talking out of your glitter hole.

I'm done!

Roger Hassenforder

klaaaz wrote: »

Painting exaggerated extremes is not helping your point.

Its the "exaggerated extremes" that establish everyone sits somewhere on the spectrum of 'what is appropriate to wear'. Some are more willing to admit it, others cant bring themselves to admit it.

klaaaz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't think there is anything in the world which could help my point with you klaaaz - you've painted yourself into a corner with your clothes don't matter nonsense. You refuse to accept you could possibly be wrong, even in wildly exaggerated extreme circumstances.

You've been given a heap of examples where clothes clearly would matter to any half sane person and you just either pretend you don't see it or deflect with some obtuse non answer bullshít.

Clothes do matter to the conservative posters here, they object and get upset about a man in a dress(even conservatively dressed) reading a book to kids, that's the crux of it. Apparently it goes against their "gender norms" and is indoctrinating kids into whatever the latest conspiracy theory is.

silverharp

klaaaz wrote: »

Clothes do matter to the conservative posters here, they object and get upset about a man in a dress(even conservatively dressed) reading a book to kids, that's the crux of it. Apparently it goes against their "gender norms" and is indoctrinating kids into whatever the latest conspiracy theory is.

maybe if the volume wasnt dialed up to a 100 people could be more chilled, i dont know about what conspiracy theories there are but there certainly is an ideological push beyond what the numbers would suggest. people with down's syndrome or autism are left in the ha'penny place dont you think? maybe they arent of any use in crushing the patriarchy ? :pac:

mad muffin

Came across these on my recommended list on you tube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlRkLtKqSrY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VovGbtShGvk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYtGPLpW-g8

Roger Hassenforder

klaaaz wrote: »

Clothes do matter to the conservative posters here, they object and get upset about a man in a dress(even conservatively dressed) reading a book to kids, that's the crux of it. Apparently it goes against their "gender norms" and is indoctrinating kids into whatever the latest conspiracy theory is.

Ah the old conspiracy theory/conservative shots.

Everyone is "conservative" relative to someone "more liberal". Its an arbitrary meaningless construct. Even you have limits to what is appropriate wear. You just cant admit it.
The gig is up Klaaaz

An man dressed conservatively in a dress though ( as opposed to a man dressed "unconservatively" in a dress). Thats a new one TBF. Would it be decolletage covered, long on the leg V. low cut, high thigh...?
We're not the fashion police.

A lot of posters just have an issue with this group reading books to kids. Maybe they should form an off shoot, divest themselves of all 'Glitter Hole' trappings in their promotional material, be more kid friendky, and at the risk of triggering certain posters, go off and get Garda vetting to appease "conservative parents like myself, worried about their kids catching the gayness from them".

klaaaz

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Ah the old conspiracy theory/conservative shots.

Everyone is "conservative" relative to someone "more liberal". Its an arbitrary meaningless construct. Even you have limits to what is appropriate wear. You just cant admit it.

See Mad Muffin's videos of the conservative Heritage Foundation's view on gender, together with a few posters who back Gemma O'Doherty's conservative views in her namesake thread backs up my point.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

An man dressed conservatively in a dress though ( as opposed to a man dressed "unconservatively" in a dress). Thats a new one TBF. Would it be decolletage covered, long on the leg V. low cut, high thigh...?
We're not the fashion police.

A lot of posters just have an issue with this group reading books to kids. Maybe they should form an off shoot, divest themselves of all 'Glitter Hole' trappings in their promotional material, be more kid friendky, and at the risk of triggering certain posters, go off and get Garda vetting to appease "conservative parents like myself, worried about their kids catching the gayness from them".

Dressing conservatively(less flesh shown) as opposed to the often held stereotype of the old fashioned gender clothing supporters of a scantily clad image of a man!!
Some posters have the strongly held view that a child seeing a man in a dress will enable their kids to "catch the gayness", violating "gender norms"!

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

See Mad Muffin's videos of the conservative Heritage Foundation's view on gender, together with a few posters who back Gemma O'Doherty's conservative views in her namesake thread backs up my point.
!

The reason why these speakers and others like them appear linked with the Heritage Foundation is that mainstream leftist organisations won't touch them with a barge pole because it goes against their religion.
The speakers at such conferences are often leftists themselves but have limited public platforms. I for one am glad the Heritage Foundation gives them a voice, people like Dr Laidlaw for example.
Or how about Julia Beck, a lesbian who recently spoke at the Heritage Foundation - she said ''I am politically homeless''. She used male pronouns to reference a male rapist who wished to be known as a woman and was removed from the Law and Policy Committee of Baltimore City's LGBTQ Commission. She asks ''How can we be called homosexuals if sex is fake?''

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbzPthhj6vI

Anyways, you never answered my earlier question -

Since you believe Glitter Hole, whose mottos include ''Bottoming for Ireland'' and ''Keep the Fncking Buggery Going'', and whose usual night job involves presenting a kink and fetish act in Gay clubs, is suitable for a day job reading to small toddlers on the public purse once they put on their cardigans, do you also believe primary school teachers employed on the public purse should be allowed to work as publicly advertised sex cam girls / lads or dominatrix artists on their down time?

klaaaz

Zorya wrote: »

The reason why these speakers and others like them appear linked with the Heritage Foundation is that mainstream leftist organisations won't touch them with a barge pole because it goes against their religion.
The speakers at such conferences are often leftists themselves but have limited public platforms. I for one am glad the Heritage Foundation gives them a voice, people like Dr Laidlaw for example.
Or how about Julia Beck, a lesbian who recently spoke at the Heritage Foundation - she said ''I am politically homeless''. She used male pronouns to reference a male rapist who wished to be known as a woman and was removed from the Law and Policy Committee of Baltimore City's LGBTQ Commission. She asks ''How can we be called homosexuals if sex is fake?'

So they deserted the left cause as you claim and moved to the extreme right. They could have formed their own left group instead with their own platform but just shows their true intentions all along.

Who are those American individuals? I don't follow American conservative Christian politics and their ilk that much like you do.

Zorya wrote: »

Anyways, you never answered my earlier question -

You assumed something I said didn't you? You're asking the wrong person, ask the Dept of Education who employ teachers.

DEFTLEFTHAND

klaaaz wrote: »

So they deserted the left cause as you claim and moved to the extreme right. They could have formed their own left group instead with their own platform but just shows their true intentions all along.

Who are those American individuals? I don't follow American conservative Christian politics and their ilk that much like you do.



You assumed something I said didn't you? You're asking the wrong person, ask the Dept of Education who employ teachers.

They're classical liberals who left the extreme left, ie. regressive left.

Classic liberals have more in common with conservatives than they do with any Far Left/Right politics.

Roger Hassenforder

People can get caught up on labels and nomenclature, and lose sight of the fundamental issue, but i find hypocrites always stand out.

klaaaz

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

They're classical liberals who left the extreme left, ie. regressive left.

Classic liberals have more in common with conservatives than they do with any Far Left/Right politics.

More like the regressive right who object and get upset at a man in a dress reading a book and trying to bring us back to the dark ages of a strictly conservative society.

Roger Hassenforder

klaaaz wrote: »

More like the regressive right who object and get upset at a man in a dress reading a book and trying to bring us back to the dark ages of a strictly conservative society.

But youre so liberal, you wouldnt mind Mr Murphy teaching the 2nd yr girls Irish in a bra and jock strap.

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote:

More like the regressive right who object and get upset at a man in a dress reading a book and trying to bring us back to the dark ages of a strictly conservative society.

I would not be upset but I certainly would object to a man wearing a dress reading a book to my daughter.

I don't care what he does in his own time or to any other children who's parents want to seem progressive.

Most here have said that.

Expecting drag acts to keep their adult themed brand of queer feminism as far away as possible from my child, saying a man in a frock is strange or objecting to a child performing in drag in front of a baying group of adults is hardly dragging anything back to any dark age.

The most worrying part is that I know that you AREN'T a troll.

I wish you were.

klaaaz

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

But youre so liberal, you wouldnt mind Mr Murphy teaching the 2nd yr girls Irish in a bra and jock strap.

You have sex on the brain with your fetishes, no-one is condoning that scenario.

Deleted User wrote: »

I would not be upset but I certainly would object to a man wearing a dress reading a book to my daughter.

I don't care what he does in his own time or to any other children who's parents want to seem progressive.

Most here have said that.

Expecting drag acts to keep their adult themed brand of queer feminism as far away as possible from my child, saying a man in a frock is strange or objecting to a child performing in drag in front of a baying group of adults is hardly dragging anything back to any dark age.

The most worrying part is that I know that you AREN'T a troll.

I wish you were.

A man in a dress is no threat to any kids hence the thought of that is dark age conservative stuff.
What would you do if you and your kid were walking down the street and a man in a dress(with covered flesh for the sexual fetish posters) passed ye out?

Would you cover your kid's eyes or something?!

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote:

A man in a dress is no threat to any kids hence the thought of that is dark age conservative stuff. What would you do if you and your kid were walking down the street and a man in a dress(with covered flesh for the sexual fetish posters) passed ye out?

klaaaz wrote:

Would you cover your kid's eyes or something?!

I'd ignore him and if my daughter asked id say that it was a man wearing a dress and that it was very unusual.

Roger Hassenforder

klaaaz wrote: »

You have sex on the brain with your fetishes, no-one is condoning that scenario.

Ah Klaaaz, neither are ''sexual' items, both common articles of clothing.
How is a bra a fetish?
A jock strap?

You're the one harkening to fetishes the most, defending men in frocks, as normal.

klaaaz

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Ah Klaaaz, neither are ''sexual' items, both common articles of clothing.
How is a bra a fetish?
A jock strap?

Common items worn under other clothing but you did not say that. You just mentioned those 2 items worn in front of kids, i'm sure your fellow conservative posters will cast you aside you for your fetishes.

Roger Hassenforder wrote:

You're the one harkening to fetishes the most, defending men in frocks, as normal.

How is a man in a dress a fetish?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Ah Klaaaz, neither are ''sexual' items, both common articles of clothing.
How is a bra a fetish?
A jock strap?

You're the one harkening to fetishes the most, defending men in frocks, as normal.

Why does everything in life have to be "normal"?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

Why does everything in life have to be "normal"?

It doesn't.

But I don't have to accept that things that aren't normal to be normal.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesn't.

But I don't have to accept that things that aren't normal to be normal.

Which is fine, but then you get kids growing up and not understanding why the world isn't the way Mummy and Daddy always said it SHOULD be and getting angrier and angrier until the enter adulthood and become snowflakes.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

Which is fine, but then you get kids growing up and not understanding why the world isn't the way Mummy and Daddy always said it SHOULD be and getting angrier and angrier until the enter adulthood and become snowflakes.

I'm agree. If you teach boys that wearing a dress is normal and won't cause you any issues when you are older, they will be crappy little snowflakes.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm agree. If you teach boys that wearing a dress is normal and won't cause you any issues when you are older, they will be crappy little snowflakes.

Did I say "men wear a dress is normal"?

Do you ever actually read what people write? That's the third time I've had to call you out on it in this thread alone. I'd kind of strange - almost like you were doing it because you're completely unable to address the point that WAS raised.

Read it again. And this time address the issue of raising kids in such a way that they have a distorted view of the world when they become adults and are unable to deal with it. Because regardless of what you feel is or is not normal, it exists. And while YOU might not want to have to deal with it, you have a responsibilty to help your kids to deal with it.

Roger Hassenforder

klaaaz wrote: »

Common items worn under other clothing but you did not say that. You just mentioned those 2 items worn in front of kids, i'm sure your fellow conservative posters will cast you aside you for your fetishes.



How is a man in a dress a fetish?

How is a man in a bra sexual?
In a jock strap?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

Did I say "men wear a dress is normal"?

In that post, I never claimed you did. Calm down.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

Read it again. And this time address the issue of raising kids in such a way that they have a distorted view of the world when they become adults and are unable to deal with it. Because regardless of what you feel is or is not normal, it exists. And while YOU might not want to have to deal with it, you have a responsibilty to help your kids to deal with it.

Because something exists, and I noticed that it's not normal, you accuse me of not dealing with it? What do you want me to do? I already said I would tell my child that there are some strange/ unusual people and things in the world that make strange and unusual choices. I don't deny their existence.

You were the one who questioned why everything has to be normal. I said it doesn't. If people aren't normal, fine. But don't be surprised when you are treated in a non normal fashion.

If someone wanted to dress in a toga and walk down O'Connell Street, fine, go ahead but don't get offended when you get a few odd looks.

I don't give a **** what people do. Just once they don't expect me to wholesale accept THEIR reality and adjust mine accordingly.

You have some cheek to accuse those who raise their children to think men in dresses is unusual as distorting their world view.

Mind boggling.

Demonique

Zorya wrote: »

There are many who are calling it out in the LGBT community online - they know what is going on, the creeping legitimisation. And yet instead of calling such activities out Dr James Cantor, prominent Canadian clinical psychologist and sexologist, has very recently tweeted this...

https://twitter.com/JamesCantorPhD/status/1071499969910198274

And most replies to this tweet are calling him out

Zorya

Very interesting documentary investigation just published in Sweden in April. Avaialable to view until November here - https://www.svtplay.se/video/22035454/uppdrag-granskning/uppdrag-granskning-sasong-20-the-trans-train

It has subtitles and about half is in English. It looks at many of the issues around this area - such as dramatic increase in girls presenting, and the silence around detransition and regret. An hour long. Well worth it.


Edit - note at end it says Sweden is changing law to permit legal change of gender identity from 12, and full bottom surgery from 15 years old without parents consent.

Roger Hassenforder

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Why does everything in life have to be "normal"?

Simply because most things are.
Most sets of random observations/measurements will have a normal distribution.

Take "what clothes do men wear in Western societies"?
Pants/trousers will probably form 95% of the observations. There will be a few outliers in the top percentiles like grass shirts, kilts, sarongs. But men in a dress woukd not be frequent or common, because men dont normally wear them.

Theres nothing inherently wrong with a man choosing to wear a dress. But its not "normal".
It probably never will be. Women in pants is common, frequent or normal.

TBH, i couldnt give a monkeys if a man wears a dress. I'd accept and tolerate it, but it wont be normal. This is what i'd teach my kids.
Society however might ridicule it, or even reject it.

My issue with Brian and Klaaazs points that it should be normal or acceptable for anyone to wear what they like, is the hypocrisy of their view. They're not willing to let anyone wear whatever they like. They have limits as to whats acceptable. Everyone does.

klaaaz

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

How is a man in a bra sexual?
In a jock strap?

Why can't you say underwear? You constantly bringing up underwear items in relation to kids is disturbing, no surprise that your fellow conservatives are silent on the matter.