You didn't even read it, did you? You just disregarded it because it doesn't fit your world view. You are pathetic, scum of the earth. People present you with scientifically backed evidence showing how the world really is and you disregard it because it is brought to your attention by a group of people you find inferior to you.
This looks rhetorical, but it's about genetic compatibility more than anything else. An ideal donor is someone of the same biologically assigned sex, same blood type, same race, so on. The person that needs blood may have their life endangered if it came from a man and their body undergoes rejection from a bad transfusion.
No I think all the Africans with hiv/aids highly outnumber the whites with sex diseases What's your problem with whites anyhow? I'm one and never had and never will get a disease from sex
Out of curiosity what race are you?
But you hate white but probably live in a white country, you watch white tv. Speak a white language , ... do many people hate whites but try to be them at the same time
The elimination of the "white" race is inevitable. In fact, race is, for the most part, a nonsense construct, but the "white" race even moreso. It is clear that there is no explicit, accurate definition for being "white", the phantasm of "race purity" is far from reality and is grounded in nothing but the fantasies of people who think that those that they do not consider "white" are "taking muh womenz" (read: insecurity, as well as misogyny).
In present-day society, the identity of Western countries and their inhabitants are not pegged down by race, but by nationality—additionally, you can now see people mixing their origins with their current nationality, an example being so called "hyphenated Americans". These people range from someone holding some aspects of their culture dear to them, to someone who calls themselves so because "my [insert near ancestor] was from [insert foreign country]". Contrary to the European failure at integrating immigrants, the United States has done well with the integration of immigrants, and miscegenation of races will thus be unavoidable, and the delusion of "white purity" will become extinct.
Even in Europe, although they may not have succeeded in integrating their immigrants well (leading to the formation of ghettos such as the ones in Tower Hamlets, London), there will always be a few immigrants who manage to escape from the grasps of these ghettos and integrate within larger society. This leads to race-mixing as well, albeit to a lesser extent, but every bit counts, and every bit helps. Why? When two people of color have children, you can usually see distinct features from both parents present in the child. When a person of color and a white person have a child, the most commonly (and usually only) feature passed down from the white parent is lighter skin (cumskin). This is due to the fact that the genes that lead to the expression of so-called "white" phenotypes, are for the most part, recessive. This facilitates the elimination of "white" features in society.
Furthermore, children who have blood from both a person of color and a white person are forsaken by those who fantasize about the white race being preserved, even though they carry recessive genes from their white parent, genes that could eventually be expressed again. This will also contribute to the demise of the so-called "white race".
Eventually, no person who considers themselves "white" will have so-called "pure" genes. Hence, the white race will have been eliminated by the standards set by the race purists themselves, having led themselves to their own demise.
Biologically assigned sex and sex are different, a transsexual changes their sex (surprise surprise). What you're saying is regarding transgender people only.
But whatever, lobster daddy said fuck trans-marxists lmaaooo
They don't change their sex, they change outward gender appearance. They're still the same sex they were, they just use clothing, makeup, and surgery to make you register them as "the other sex" when you look at them.
That's literally it. There is no such thing as gender, there is sex, of which there are two.
There is a reason why one is called "biological sex" and the other is just "sex". If you're female and get yourself a dick, you're considered male by most if not all standards in society (given you go through hormone therapy as well). You can call the trans person in this photo a "male" when talking about his sex, but that's just odd as (s)he obviously doesn't look life one. Again, by most if not all standards of society she's now a male.
S/He, however, is a "biological female" i.e she has XX chromosomes.
Hence, sex and bio-sex are considered different things.
But sex doesn't ever change was my whole comment, only outward signals to other people that make us class you in the box male/female.
You can't even get the sex of this retard straight, it's a "trans woman" AKA it was a man and "became" a woman. That's how ridiculous this whole thing is. It's a man dressed as a woman with a ponytail and a bad cocktail of hormones that made HIM absolutely repulsive to the primate response that we have in our brains where "This doesn't fit in either category I know it should, I should stay away from that".
Whose standards? Retarded white women competing with each other to be the most progressive?
Again, consider the guy in the pic. If someone asked you about his sex, would you say "male" or "female"? I said "all standards" because normal people would answer this with "male". If he sounds like a male, talks like a male, fucks like a male, and looks like a male, there's literally no reason to call him a "female" other than for medical reasons.
Now, if one was asked of the sex of Christian Weston Chandler, people may (and will) say "male". He's basically a guy with make-up on who's gender identity is female, and as you say gender doesn't exist so that's irrelevant.
Sex, in everyday terms, is not determined by your chromosomes. It's determined by your sexual organ. And while the fake-cock of a trans-male may not be the most dick-like dick in the universe, it's still a dick hence he is called a male. But in more nuanced issues such as medical treatment, chromosome is indeed what matters.
Hence, bio-sex and sex are differentiated. It's a nice way of separating the two concepts, and we all know that differentiating terms is a good thing. Otherwise we get retards who say shit like "Racism is prejudice + power" because they can not differentiate between racism and institutional racism.
Sex is not determined by sexual organs you possess, and even if it was, attaching a strip of tube shaped flesh to your pelvis DOES NOT A PENIS MAKE, so your point is just as incoherent as it was before this comment
But by all means, keep bending over backwards to do anything EXCEPT admit that trans people don't change sex. I'd fuck bussy as much as the next (straight) male, but don't lie about what it is, BOI-PUCCI, not gussy, BUSSY
I'm making a distinction between bio-sex and sex, because sex has both biological and social importance. You're acting as if I claimed biological sex can be changed, which isn't the case.
All your text regarding how sex can not be changed is irrelevant until we agree on the terminology. Do you agree with the fact that sex has social importance? Because if you do, then you should grant me sex has both social and biological importance. We also agreed that sex can be deceiving; a bio-female can look exactly like a bio-male and can even have a dick. If someone is a male in the eyes of the society in every aspect (again; looks, talks, eats, fucks like a male), but not in the eyes of biology; why aren't you willing to have 2 different terms for it? You can't be suggesting that referring to the person in question as "female" is going to be practical in any case other than medical.
"It's annoying to have to deal with the rage of trannys when you don't call them what they want, so make up a whole new category of thing to call them"
No thanks, I subscribe to this sick thing called reality. Sex doesn't change, fuck off, end of discussion.
You're arguing that sex and "bio-sex" are different which is fucking retarded. All sex is "bio-sex." There is only one kind of sex, and it cannot change.
Furthermore you keep asking "well would you think this was a woman?" as if what someone looks like affects what they are. It does not. A coyote that looks like a wolf is still a fucking coyote m8.
You're arguing that sex and "bio-sex" are different which is fucking retarded. All sex is "bio-sex." There is only one kind of sex, and it cannot change.
Again, you're not addressing my arguments. You're practically saying "I disagree" without further explanation or quotes so I don't know what you expect from me at the moment. I guess thanks for your input?
You actually did not. I gave out my reasoning for my conclusion, and your reply is "your conclusion is incorrect" and pretty much nothing else. The only charitable way I can interpret this is that you think you wrote out a valid explanation by saying "You're wrong because [your conclusion is wrong", which would be a tautology at best.
Your reasoning is wrong because the social importance of sex is based on what sex you are, you absolute brainlet. You cannot change your sex, therefore the "social importance of your sex" does not change. Your dumb ass can't understand a basic analogy, apparently, so you're complaining I didn't walk you through a course in remedial reading comprehension so you could respond to what I actually said.
Your dumb ass can't understand a basic analogy, apparently,
It's a horrible analogy as it applies both to social and bio sex; in other words is treats them as one to make a point, whereas my point is that they aren't one in the first place. In addition now that you're leaving the "analogy" behind, the problems with your argument (obviously from my point of view) start appearing. Such as:
social importance of sex is based on what sex you are
This would imply the muscular trans-male I linked to a while ago will be treated as a female in social situations, when that's clearly not the case. Unless you're willing to argue otherwise, you need to grant me that someone's biological sex can fail to match up with their perceived "social sex". Do you grant me this? Yes or no.
The muscular trans male's entire psychology was shaped by being treated as a female throughout the most formative years of her life. This is massively more important to who she is than being perceived as a dude on the street by your average person. Some cisgender females are actually confused for male, and under your incredibly stupid argument, that would make them male.
Lying about something well enough to convince other people doesn't make your lie actually true.
Say the coyote that looks like a wolf is injured, and is taken in by a wildlife rescue organization. The coyote looks so much like a wolf that the group puts him in the wolf sanctuary with a wolf pack, feeds him wolf food, and gives him wolf-based medical treatment until someone looks closer and realizes he's actually a coyote.
Coyotes do not engage in complex social behavior, hence why your analogy is fallacious. We're talking bio-sex vs social sex, and you're coming to me with coyotes and wolves, and surprise surprise; they're relationship is purely biological. You might as well say "Well, a trans-man can not spread his semen so he's not a male". Which is true (I've said this a million times already), the discussion is hand is social versus biological sex.
Now please give a yes/no answer to my previous question.
Nourishing and raising a coyote is nothing social, it's purely biological; hence why your analogy is fallacious. We're talking bio-sex vs social sex, and you're coming to me with nourishing coyotes. You might as well say "Well, a trans-man can not spread his semen so he's not a male". Which is true (I've said this a million times already), the discussion is hand is social versus biological sex.
This is exactly why I'm accusing you of not reading anything I wrote. You're failing to see how this argument got started- it was a discussion that was meant to differentiate bio and social sex. All you're doing is repeating "hurr durr bio sex can not be changed". Unless you cease repeating this irrelevant fact, this conversation is not going anywhere.
Now please give a yes/no answer to my previous question.
There is no such thing as social sex, you fucking idiot. Even gender types don't call anything "social sex." It's like you're arguing the distinction between horses and dragons and getting mad that people aren't addressing your rambling nonsense conclusions because dragons don't fucking exist.
Nourishing and raising a coyote is nothing social, it's purely biological
...both coyotes and wolves are social animals with complex pack dynamics fam. A coyote in a wolf pen will have a very different experience than a coyote in with other coyotes. I think the argument you're trying to make is that if the coyote were accepted by the wolves as a wolf, the coyote's species has now changed because its "social species" is now different.
...both coyotes and wolves are social animals with complex pack dynamics fam.
Intra-species, yes. But you're talking about humans raising the coyote, and that doesn't have anything to do with inter-species packs.
There is no such thing as social sex, you fucking idiot.
Funny thing about this is how long it took you to say this. Whether it exists or not has been the main issue of this debate, yet only now you've addressed it, and in addition you're pretending as if it was a given. Also "getting mad that people aren't addressing your rambling nonsense conclusions because dragons don't fucking exist" this isn't true, why would I get mad at you for making counter points against me? I was bothered by your attitude because you failed to see the main issue of hours.
Now we've come this far, please for the love of god answer my question.
This would imply the muscular trans-male I linked to a while ago will be treated as a female in social situations, when that's clearly not the case. Unless you're willing to argue otherwise, you need to grant me that someone's biological sex can fail to match up with their perceived "social sex". Do you grant me this (y/n)?
or answer this other question
Let me get this straight; you're saying that the muscular trans-man will be treated as a female in social situations. Yes or no.
But you're talking about humans raising the coyote,
I very clearly said this was a wild coyote who got injured and taken in by humans and put in with the wolves. The humans aren't raising anything. Seeeeriously basic reading comprehension here fam.
You made up this idea of social sex because you were trying to argue sex changes and couldn't do it without moving the goalposts. I even addressed your imaginary dragon earlier by talking about how a passing transperson was already fully treated as their sex during all of the important stages of development, so even if "social sex" were a thing, which it isn't, the referenced tranny's "social sex" hasn't changed either.
You made up this idea of social sex because you were trying to argue sex changes and couldn't do it without moving the goalposts.
No, you misread this thread. It has never been about changing bio-sex. I admitted bio-sex can not be changed even before I started talking to you.
You're not answering my question and committing on your tautology. Please help this conversation continue by answering the questions, because the fact that you're repeating yourself so often makes me think you've never seen a debate before.
I'm not answering your question because your question is in bad faith. How about you address my coyote analogy in a way other than painfully misunderstanding it.
I'm ignoring coyotes because I don't think that's going to take us anywhere. I'm going to say "Coyotes can not think like humans and are limited to their biology, when the human mind is much more than our biological urges". You're probably going to say something among the lines of "We're still majorly affected by our biology & instincts". I'm going to give some examples to counter that notion, and you're going to do the same. Repeat ad nauseam. We can discuss it if you want to, but I'd rather not.
I'm not answering your question because your question is in bad faith
It isn't though. I want you to answer the question because I believe it'll take us the the heart of our disagreement, unlike the coyote analogy which is basically the same problem applied to other animals so it'll be the same discussion except with animals.
You know what I want? A hot girlfriend to lavish me with expensive gifts so I never have to pay for fancy clothes again. Until then, get your designer socks for 50% off at socksoff.com, the premiere discount sock site on the internet. We work for you! Socksoff.com
If that were the case the FDA would require you to donate under your biological sex instead of the current recommendation to allow donors to donate under their self identified gender you fucking retard. Nice feels before reals. People get plasma from the other sex all the time. Possibly hormones are on the list of drugs that preclude you from donating but I doubt it. I only remember being asked about retinoids and a couple other things when I donated. I guarantee you that banning transsexuals was about perceived sexual activity, not drugs or biological sex.
Its probably more about risk factors/behaviour with MtF’s and donating blood. Here in Norway mtf and gay people are not allowed to donate because of their behaviour in terms of sex; anal sex. Anal sex has a much higher transmission rate of HIV than anything else, bar vertically (mother to child).
It's not that, they actually have higher rates of HIV infection than gay men. Something like 49 times higher than the general population compared to 24 times higher according to the UN's "UNAIDS" prevention program and let's not even get started on Hep C...
This whole thing is stupid. She's not being discriminated against, this is not a place of public accommodation, it's a business that is buying a product (your blood plasma) and they have the right to choose which products they want to buy. If they want to screen out transexuals and gaymen and IV drug users because of the statistical chance their blood plasma will be worthless to them, then that's not discrimination, that's not wanting to pay for something you don't want.
I would argue she is. Gay and trans' people are much more at risk, that's true, but they're not more at risk because they are gay and trans'. You don't suddenly develop HIV because you're gay or trans'. They're more at risk because gay and trans' people tend to have lifestyles more prone to having an infected blood.
A promiscuous straight person is much more at risk of having HIV than a "sexually sedentary" gay or trans' person, and I'm pretty sure that is part of the questions you have to answer. It honestly sounds like blood centers are being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.
Then you'd be a fucking retard because there isn't a single definition of discrimination on the planet that forces someone to buy something from another person.
Hey, here's my Mt. Dew bottle filled with urine. It's only 100 dollars. What you don't want to buy it? Is it because I'm MEXICAN YOU RACIST PIECE OF SHIT??!?
Then you'd be a fucking retard because there isn't a single definition of discrimination on the planet that forces someone to buy something from another person.
A definition does not force you to do anything. Just because something is not against the law, doesn't mean it's not discrimination. And definitely there are so instances where excluding certain sellers could be legally actionable, I mean if the best qualified contractor for a certain job was rejected because they employed Jews they could definitely sue.
Again, I would say no, because being gay or trans' doesn't suddenly cause people to develop infections, it's having had new partners recently, or your partners themselves having had new partners (Or your partners' partners' having ha- okay you get it).
A gay guy who has sex regularly with another (faithful) gay guy is much less at risk than a promiscuous straight woman. Being able or not to give blood should be based on your (recent, since the real problem would be giving infected blood that does not yet have antibodies) sexual life.
The only exception I could see would be lesbians because lesbian sex has a very low rate of contamination (That is, having lesbian sex with someone else has some chance but not high of transmitting HIV). This means that even a woman who has been in a faithful relationship with another woman for long can be at a fairly significant risk of having contracted HIV in the last 3-4 months.
I'm not denying they are at-risk, I am denying considering that risk being inherent to being homosexual.
Picture an HIV-free person. They enter in a (sexual) relationship, both parties faithful. A year later they want to donate blood, what are the odds their blood is infected, assuming their partner hasn't been tested for HIV ?
There's always a chance so long as their partner hasn't been tested, but the variations based on their sexes is extremely low (Except, as I explained earlier, in the case of lesbians because of the very low rate of transmission of lesbian sex).
Sure, if you sleep around a lot, the odds start being higher for gay people because the people they are having sex with are themselves on average more infected. But for people who aren't promiscuous and have been in a faithful relationship for long, the odds of being infected are very much the same as for straight people (Again, except in the case of lesbians).
I think the problem is seeing this as a gay/straight problem instead of a promiscuous/non-promiscuous problem, which is a relic of when HIV was considered the gay plague and all. And those are questions someone could very easily answer (And in fact I'm sure they already do) when donating blood. And sure, one could say they can lie, but they can already, can't they ?
Back to why this matters, I would say it does when donating blood is paid, as in the case in the USA. It is thus the equivalent of denying a job based solely on sexual orientation (Or gender identity in that case).
I am denying that risk being inherent to being homosexual.
I deny that as well, the risk lies in dudes having sex with each other.
I would say it does when donating blood is paid, as in the case in the USA. It is thus the equivalent of denying a job based solely on sexual orientation
Donating blood is not a job, and it isn't a right. It's a voluntary, altruistic act.
I know, but a man who has sex with men can give safe blood just as safely as straight people if enough safeguards are put in place regarding sexual "habits". I understand banning someone who actually has a higher-than-average risk of having infected blood, but that's just not the case of all men who have sex with men, and it's a fairly easy thing to check with a proper questionnaire.
Am I not allowed an opinion on the safety of the blood of the people who are being donated? Apparently only you are, when your beliefs are wildly out of tune with the FDA? And motivated likely entirely by bigotry, and not at all by science?
No one is claiming that donating blood is a right. The fact that it is not a right is not in itself a justification for passing whatever bans willy nilly you want regardless of evidence, reason, or the opinion of the scientific community.
You are trying to justify something by saying that it's not illegal, but that's not a justification. The individual in question here hasn't had sex with men. So she would not be disqualified by ordinary procedures, which simply ask if you're a man who had sex with a man in the last year. Putting restrictions above and beyond that is unnecessary. I mean it's not really purely gay men that are the problem, it's gay men who have sex with a lot of other gay men. Gay men that are celibate or monogamous are not really a problem. Trans women who are celibate or monogamous are not a problem either. That's why the FDA's guidelines exist. Why does this organization think it knows better than the FDA? Why do you simply blindly assume that their policy is 100% justified, just because you think the law doesn't ban it? I assume you're butthurt about Twitter censoring racists too.
They are also more at risk because of the type of sex they have. Anal sex has an increased rate of hiv transfer than PIV sex. Men and women can have anal sex but gay and trans people can Only have anal sex. And then if theyre post op well thats just an open fuckin wound.
They are also more at risk because of the type of sex they have. Anal sex has an increased rate of hiv transfer than PIV sex.
This is true, and I pointed this out for lesbian sex in other comments. However the difference isn't big enough to matter if you're not promiscuous. If you've been in a relationship long enough, you've likely had enough sex that the odds of transmission (Except in the case of lesbians) barely have any impact on your chances of having been infected.
Even for lesbians, I don't think it takes that long for infection to become a negligible risk, though probably a bit too long than would be practical. In fact one can calculate the number of sexual "instances" it takes to reach X chances of being infected given Y odds of not being infected per sexual "instance" with this formula: ln(X)/ln(Y) (Round up, obviously).
You can see that you can reach very high certainty even with fairly low odds of transmission easily enough given a long - and sexual, I guess - enough relationship.
Yeah and im pretty sure being a lesbian doesn't prevent you from giving blood. Just if you're a gay man. And in the eyes of biology trans women are gay men. Its a level of filtering they do ahead of time. Its a simple equation of cost vs risk. They could get more blood if they accepted blood from gay men but then there is an increased risk of hiv infected blood. Even with testing, the risk of getting sued if the test is incorrect is way higher than the benefit of getting blood from gay men. Its really not a hard equation to understand. Your equations are all based on the ideas that gay people are separated into promiscuous and non promiscuous populations. Its not like gays wear a scarlet letter when they're single. Its unrealistic. Gay people have higher than normal rates of hiv. Thats just how it is.
I have an extreme and justified hatred for pedophiles AND hebephiles considering the job I have. I'm the one who has to try to and help your victims and their families move on, I've seen kids attempt suicide because of subhuman trash like you, I've had to tell parents and guardians that their child or charge killed themselves because of subhuman trash like you. I've lost a relative because of subhuman pieces of shit like you. Pedophiles and Hebephiles like you, who justify preying on underage kids, who make excuse after excuse for their mental illness deserve every bit of hatred thrown at them. You can justify being mentally ill all you want, it won't change the fact that you're barely human and not worthy of the same rights afforded to human beings. The only good thing Hitler did was killing off members of your species.
I have a really good one subhuman. Just like regular upstanding people have a reason to hate terrorists and gangbangers. Now why don't you're go defend more of your fellow subhumans?
I've done literally nothing wrong, why would you say that? I also pretty much only watch JAV, which is professionally produced, so all actresses are >18. Meanwhile most guys out there who search for amateur teen porn on websites don't have this confirmation. That's because I'm concerned with the ethics of it (and also because I think Japanese women are pretty hot)
Because you're a scumbag hebephile with pedophilic tendencies and creepy ass kink for incest. You're an extremely sick person who either needs to be chemically castrated or needs to fucking killing themselves before you ruin someone's life or before you rape your niece.
I also pretty much only watch JAV, which is professionally produced, so all actresses are >18.
Maybe you do but I don't doubt you have some illegal stuff on your computer.
Meanwhile most guys out there who search for amateur teen porn on websites don't have this confirmation.
Like yourself.
That's because I'm concerned with the ethics of it
Bullshit.
(and also because I think Japanese women are pretty hot)
You mean lolicon little girls since you're always defending lolicon.
You defend lolicon way too much to be an exclusive hebephile, there's some pedo tendencies there too. And I'm not making up anything.
What a fucked up thing to say,
People with your disorder can't be trusted.
there's really something majorly wrong with you
Rich coming from you.
I mean cute, adult Japanese women
Until you find some poor underage Japanese girl and not some waifu pillow. I sincerely hope the girl can run fast or at the very least I hope she's illegally carrying a knife on her. You mentioned the shithole country in Europe that you're from doesn't allow people to carry weapons? I bet that makes you very happy.
sounds like you're quite knowledgeable about this. :Thinking:
You defend lolicon way too much to be an exclusive hebephile
I'd defend it as in saying that it shouldn't be illegal but I'd defend stuff like guro on the same reasons and I'm into neither. When I read doujins (which I don't do that often) it's ones with teenage girls (e.g. Megumin) and not legit lolis (like Shinobu).
Rich coming from you.
Well there isn't anything wrong with me, so ...
I sincerely hope the girl can run fast or at the very least I hope she's illegally carrying a knife on her.
I'd maybe ask her out or something but <18 is a bit young in general ...
You mentioned the shithole country in Europe that you're from doesn't allow people to carry weapons? I bet that makes you very happy.
yeah, being shot because of the color of my skin would suck. lol
One subhuman calling another subhuman a weirdo. You kind is so funny. It probably thinks you're trash too. I mean you are but that's besides the point here.
I wouldn't mind some consensual little sister roleplay. Anyway, you think just because someone has a harmless link they can't judge others for legitimate fucked up stuff? I mean that dudes sick, as a future father of hapa daughters I'm worried about people like this.
I wouldn't mind some consensual little sister roleplay.
"Consensual" sure. Thankfully you live in Europe so the chances of you being killed by a migrant who refuses to assimilate are pretty high. Of course he'll need to be jailed and executed for his crimes but that solves two problems at once. Two predators removed from society.
Anyway, you think just because someone has a harmless link they can't judge others for legitimate fucked up stuff?
I find it ironic that you judge your fellow subhuman for being disgusting when you're not too much better. Neither of you are acceptable.
I mean that dudes sick, as a future father of hapa daughters I'm worried about people like this.
Ah so you plan on impregnating whatever unfortunate Asian girl you manage to kidnap? I'm guessing you'll probably urge her to get an abortion if you find out she'll have a boy.
Thankfully you live in Europe so the chances of you being killed by a migrant who refuses to assimilate are pretty high.
They are actually extremely low. Much lower for instance than a burger being shot by his infant son with his own gun.
Neither of you are acceptable.
Having a preference for cute, petite women and wanting to rape a child aren't really on the same level, don't you think?
Ah so you plan on impregnating whatever unfortunate Asian girl you manage to kidnap?
If that's what you call my future wife, yes, of course only if we're in agreement about our family plans. Personally I think 1-2 kids would be reasonable.
I'm guessing you'll probably urge her to get an abortion if you find out she'll have a boy.
It's true that I'd much rather have hapa daughters but simply because I only want the best for my future kids and hapa girls seem to have it somewhat easier in our Western societies than hapa guys. But if it should be a boy I of course would still love and support him all the same.
Proof is in the comments. You say the only reason you go for tiny women is because your family would know you like 14-year olds.
And since you think people who don't like you are alts then explain how I'm able to post at different times from 50 different alts? Or more if you counts the downvotes and hostility from justneckbeardthings. Can you explain that?
No, because they're my type. Adult women with a petite bodytype are still adult women, mentally developed and stuff, that's what matters.
Mentally developed but you like to talk about underage girls all the time. You only recently started talking about adults because people called you out for being subhuman.
Mentally developed but you like to talk about underage girls all the time. You only recently started talking about adults because people called you out for being subhuman.
No, and it's one thing to possibly find them attractive and another to act on it. Just saying.
If that happens, do we necessarily have to call the jihadist a bad guy or just an accidental good guy? I mean jihadists are evil obviously but so are pedos and hebes.
I don't really care what you think since I'm not interested in you. If you're having a better time when I fit your mental stereotype of whatever you want to call me then good for you.
Yeah but you think all secondary sex characteristics are gross and your opinions are garbage. If I had to choose between you and trannies, I would pick trannies every day of the week
Because only the ones that are particularly nuts complain about this sort of inconsequential bullshit and their extreme lunacy means they lack the will or ability to take care of themselves physically.
Men who wish they were biological women are not female. Biology is important and real it's not fairy tail make believe. That trans will always be a man no matter how long their braid or how much lipstick they put on.
Why cant people be okay with their biology and shatter sex based stereotypes? I don't care to see a dude in a dress or doing body modifications to their chest or whatever, more power too them but when you deny biology and then try to sue people in the medical field for doing their job that's a problem.
Did you know that female blood can harm male bodied people? Males that recieve female blood have a higher mortality rate. There are differences between male and female bodied people and it's not bigoted to know this, it's just reality.
Does plasma donation have the same rules as blood donation, where you can't donate if you're "a man who has had sex with another man"? That would be an interesting argument to see play out in court.
​
Oh who am I kidding. With a mug like that, there's no chance this person is having sex with any men or women.
The city's nondiscrimination ordinance, commonly known as NDO, was passed in 2013 and forbids discrimination based on gender identity in "places of public accommodation."
But they're clearly not discriminating based on gender identity if other women are allowed to donate, right?
She'd hate Canada. We don't accept blood from gays and people with new tattoos or drug users. And our medical if free. But 20-30 years ago when they did accept blood from everyone,they got overwhelmed and ended up infecting thousands with hepatitis c
Better safe then thousands young and old dying from a transfusion
It said they wouldn't take her plasma as a woman, in the article it says they wouldn't take her plasma at all and she was banned, in the comments it says they wouldn't take her plasma because tranny plasma is unsafe. I don't even care about transfolk but we just look stupid making jokes based on a misleading headline.
226 comments
1 BussyShillBot 2018-09-21
May Allah break the backs of all those who support these disease-ridden rodents.
Outlines:
I am a bot for posting Outline.com links. github / Contact for info or issues
1 SnapshillBot 2018-09-21
You didn't even read it, did you? You just disregarded it because it doesn't fit your world view. You are pathetic, scum of the earth. People present you with scientifically backed evidence showing how the world really is and you disregard it because it is brought to your attention by a group of people you find inferior to you.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 MemesOfTheResistance 2018-09-21
How dare they notice his gender
1 de_licious_WOT 2018-09-21
their*
1 1963730399 2018-09-21
i'm not against trannies but i mean come on. do you really think giving someone blood from someone who's getting pumped with hormones is the best idea
1 zonneschijne 2018-09-21
This looks rhetorical, but it's about genetic compatibility more than anything else. An ideal donor is someone of the same biologically assigned sex, same blood type, same race, so on. The person that needs blood may have their life endangered if it came from a man and their body undergoes rejection from a bad transfusion.
1 MildlyCat 2018-09-21
What sociologist said…
1 JabroniMark99 2018-09-21
Lmao probably more anti science than Christian's.
1 oaddsandk 2018-09-21
Your apostrophe use triggers me.
1 JabroniMark99 2018-09-21
My phone has shitty autocorrect.
1 -Kite-Man- 2018-09-21
...so turn it off?
1 llapingachos 2018-09-21
Christian universities were responsible for the retention of classical science during the European dark ages, what are you trying to say here?
1 JabroniMark99 2018-09-21
Modern day Christians lean very anti-science.
1 yoyoyoyoyoyoy0 2018-09-21
shut up yankee doodle dandy. Ye don't know shit
1 PizzaHoe696969 2018-09-21
Your telling me sociology is actively against biology and reality?!?!?!?!?
KILL THIS NAZI NOW
1 fingerpaintswithpoop 2018-09-21
You’re*
1 Rise_of_the_Toucan 2018-09-21
FOUND ANOTHER NAZI!!!!
1 mcslibbin 2018-09-21
the worst one is the chronic condition of having had sex with a white person
1 zonneschijne 2018-09-21
God, imagine making more of them. Trigger Warning: I mean white people breeding to make more of them.
1 michgot 2018-09-21
Incels are genetic course correction, the fact that it affects brownies from pooinloo is just affirmative action.
1 keksup 2018-09-21
you gotta recognize credit where it's due though, mayos make the best traps.
dude in the picture is ugly and fat. But he looks like an ugly fat white girl.
1 IFuckedZoeQuinn 2018-09-21
Nuh uh, Asians make the best traps.
1 aqouta 2018-09-21
Asians are just hyperwhites.
1 Methadol 2018-09-21
No I think all the Africans with hiv/aids highly outnumber the whites with sex diseases What's your problem with whites anyhow? I'm one and never had and never will get a disease from sex
Out of curiosity what race are you?
1 zonneschijne 2018-09-21
Hello, they are white?
I classify as a beaner.
1 Methadol 2018-09-21
But you hate white but probably live in a white country, you watch white tv. Speak a white language , ... do many people hate whites but try to be them at the same time
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-09-21
I live in Pakistan lol.
I don't watch TV.
I'm multilingual lol.
Confirmed boomer.
1 Methadol 2018-09-21
Your from Pakistan/terrorist country so I see your hatred for whites. Please tell your people to stop coming here
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-09-21
If you tell your drones to stop bombing us.
1 Methadol 2018-09-21
I'm not American
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-09-21
Son, this is a pro-mayocide sub.
1 llapingachos 2018-09-21
Pakistan was created by the British, of course its a white country.
Just look at these crackers cakewalking around https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC9NeJh1NhI
1 zonneschijne 2018-09-21
What the fuck is a white country? Nazi Germany?
What the fuck is white TV? I watch my TV in technicolor.
What the fuck is a 'white language'?
Who the fuck wants to be a mayo? Nobody
1 pizzachill 2018-09-21
They're the ones with electricity and running water Jose
1 trilateral1 2018-09-21
90% or more whypipo
that includes north america until the 1950s. and large parts of europe still today.
alternatively: a counrty run by white people.
1 Hyliga 2018-09-21
Delusional mayo sees mayo everywhere he looks- no one is surprised.
This is why the sub was better when private.
1 shallowm 2018-09-21
The elimination of the "white" race is inevitable. In fact, race is, for the most part, a nonsense construct, but the "white" race even moreso. It is clear that there is no explicit, accurate definition for being "white", the phantasm of "race purity" is far from reality and is grounded in nothing but the fantasies of people who think that those that they do not consider "white" are "taking muh womenz" (read: insecurity, as well as misogyny).
In present-day society, the identity of Western countries and their inhabitants are not pegged down by race, but by nationality—additionally, you can now see people mixing their origins with their current nationality, an example being so called "hyphenated Americans". These people range from someone holding some aspects of their culture dear to them, to someone who calls themselves so because "my [insert near ancestor] was from [insert foreign country]". Contrary to the European failure at integrating immigrants, the United States has done well with the integration of immigrants, and miscegenation of races will thus be unavoidable, and the delusion of "white purity" will become extinct.
Even in Europe, although they may not have succeeded in integrating their immigrants well (leading to the formation of ghettos such as the ones in Tower Hamlets, London), there will always be a few immigrants who manage to escape from the grasps of these ghettos and integrate within larger society. This leads to race-mixing as well, albeit to a lesser extent, but every bit counts, and every bit helps. Why? When two people of color have children, you can usually see distinct features from both parents present in the child. When a person of color and a white person have a child, the most commonly (and usually only) feature passed down from the white parent is lighter skin (cumskin). This is due to the fact that the genes that lead to the expression of so-called "white" phenotypes, are for the most part, recessive. This facilitates the elimination of "white" features in society.
Furthermore, children who have blood from both a person of color and a white person are forsaken by those who fantasize about the white race being preserved, even though they carry recessive genes from their white parent, genes that could eventually be expressed again. This will also contribute to the demise of the so-called "white race".
Eventually, no person who considers themselves "white" will have so-called "pure" genes. Hence, the white race will have been eliminated by the standards set by the race purists themselves, having led themselves to their own demise.
1 LongPostBot 2018-09-21
Sorry ma'am, looks like his delusions have gotten worse. We'll have to admit him,
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-09-21
They're mayos.
True Aryan, aka Pashtun.
1 Methadol 2018-09-21
No I don't do drugs. I smoke weed but it's legal. I was addicted for a brief stint, has zero to do with the topic though
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-09-21
Can someone link race and opioid usage statistics in the United States?
1 Methadol 2018-09-21
I'm not American
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-09-21
Still a mayo, m8.
1 Methadol 2018-09-21
No I'm Native American
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2018-09-21
Yeah we all are. They let almost anyone be born here these days.
1 padraigd 2018-09-21
pashtuns are white lad
1 trilateral1 2018-09-21
That's only because Repugnitans are manipulating the statistics.
anyway, all white people have at least one sexually transmitted disease: it's called whiteness.
1 mcantrell 2018-09-21
... Biological sex. Actually, just fucking sex. Biological is implied.
The same sex. Transwomen might be women, but they're biologi... Speaking to the choir.
​
Christ, Tumblr was a mistake. The Gender Marxist nutjobs need to get free helicopter rides out of University.
1 Hyliga 2018-09-21
Biologically assigned sex and sex are different, a transsexual changes their sex (surprise surprise). What you're saying is regarding transgender people only.
But whatever, lobster daddy said fuck trans-marxists lmaaooo
1 mcantrell 2018-09-21
Bah, fair point, I didn't think of transitioning. I guess that would count.
1 MuhSoggyKneez 2018-09-21
They don't change their sex, they change outward gender appearance. They're still the same sex they were, they just use clothing, makeup, and surgery to make you register them as "the other sex" when you look at them.
That's literally it. There is no such thing as gender, there is sex, of which there are two.
1 Hyliga 2018-09-21
Transexualism does not imply otherwise.
There is a reason why one is called "biological sex" and the other is just "sex". If you're female and get yourself a dick, you're considered male by most if not all standards in society (given you go through hormone therapy as well). You can call the trans person in this photo a "male" when talking about his sex, but that's just odd as (s)he obviously doesn't look life one. Again, by most if not all standards of society she's now a male.
S/He, however, is a "biological female" i.e she has XX chromosomes.
Hence, sex and bio-sex are considered different things.
1 MuhSoggyKneez 2018-09-21
But sex doesn't ever change was my whole comment, only outward signals to other people that make us class you in the box male/female.
You can't even get the sex of this retard straight, it's a "trans woman" AKA it was a man and "became" a woman. That's how ridiculous this whole thing is. It's a man dressed as a woman with a ponytail and a bad cocktail of hormones that made HIM absolutely repulsive to the primate response that we have in our brains where "This doesn't fit in either category I know it should, I should stay away from that".
What an absolute joke.
1 Hyliga 2018-09-21
Again, consider the guy in the pic. If someone asked you about his sex, would you say "male" or "female"? I said "all standards" because normal people would answer this with "male". If he sounds like a male, talks like a male, fucks like a male, and looks like a male, there's literally no reason to call him a "female" other than for medical reasons.
Now, if one was asked of the sex of Christian Weston Chandler, people may (and will) say "male". He's basically a guy with make-up on who's gender identity is female, and as you say gender doesn't exist so that's irrelevant.
Sex, in everyday terms, is not determined by your chromosomes. It's determined by your sexual organ. And while the fake-cock of a trans-male may not be the most dick-like dick in the universe, it's still a dick hence he is called a male. But in more nuanced issues such as medical treatment, chromosome is indeed what matters.
Hence, bio-sex and sex are differentiated. It's a nice way of separating the two concepts, and we all know that differentiating terms is a good thing. Otherwise we get retards who say shit like "Racism is prejudice + power" because they can not differentiate between racism and institutional racism.
1 MuhSoggyKneez 2018-09-21
Sex is not determined by sexual organs you possess, and even if it was, attaching a strip of tube shaped flesh to your pelvis DOES NOT A PENIS MAKE, so your point is just as incoherent as it was before this comment
But by all means, keep bending over backwards to do anything EXCEPT admit that trans people don't change sex. I'd fuck bussy as much as the next (straight) male, but don't lie about what it is, BOI-PUCCI, not gussy, BUSSY
1 Hyliga 2018-09-21
I'm making a distinction between bio-sex and sex, because sex has both biological and social importance. You're acting as if I claimed biological sex can be changed, which isn't the case.
All your text regarding how sex can not be changed is irrelevant until we agree on the terminology. Do you agree with the fact that sex has social importance? Because if you do, then you should grant me sex has both social and biological importance. We also agreed that sex can be deceiving; a bio-female can look exactly like a bio-male and can even have a dick. If someone is a male in the eyes of the society in every aspect (again; looks, talks, eats, fucks like a male), but not in the eyes of biology; why aren't you willing to have 2 different terms for it? You can't be suggesting that referring to the person in question as "female" is going to be practical in any case other than medical.
1 MuhSoggyKneez 2018-09-21
"It's annoying to have to deal with the rage of trannys when you don't call them what they want, so make up a whole new category of thing to call them"
No thanks, I subscribe to this sick thing called reality. Sex doesn't change, fuck off, end of discussion.
1 Hyliga 2018-09-21
Lmao, didn't think you'd submit a honest reply.
1 Pyroteknik 2018-09-21
The reason is creeping tranny propaganda, not reality or clarity or reason.
1 Hyliga 2018-09-21
So you would confidently identify the trans in the pic as female? Lmao ure delusional.
1 dramasexual 2018-09-21
If a coyote looks like a wolf, that doesn't make it a wolf. It's still a coyote that looks like a wolf.
How a random on the street would identify someone at first glance is irrelevant.
1 Hyliga 2018-09-21
Read the rest of the chain, this is addressed.
1 dramasexual 2018-09-21
I did. It's not addressed. It's a coyote. This trans person is a man. It's not complicated.
1 Hyliga 2018-09-21
No, you actually didn't or you're just a shit reader. You're arguing against a strawman, I explicitly stated bio-gender can not be changed.
1 dramasexual 2018-09-21
You're arguing that sex and "bio-sex" are different which is fucking retarded. All sex is "bio-sex." There is only one kind of sex, and it cannot change.
Furthermore you keep asking "well would you think this was a woman?" as if what someone looks like affects what they are. It does not. A coyote that looks like a wolf is still a fucking coyote m8.
1 Hyliga 2018-09-21
Again, you're not addressing my arguments. You're practically saying "I disagree" without further explanation or quotes so I don't know what you expect from me at the moment. I guess thanks for your input?
1 dramasexual 2018-09-21
I did address your dumbfuck argument. I guess you can't respond in any way other than to cry about it tho, so good show.
1 Hyliga 2018-09-21
You actually did not. I gave out my reasoning for my conclusion, and your reply is "your conclusion is incorrect" and pretty much nothing else. The only charitable way I can interpret this is that you think you wrote out a valid explanation by saying "You're wrong because [your conclusion is wrong", which would be a tautology at best.
1 dramasexual 2018-09-21
Your reasoning is wrong because the social importance of sex is based on what sex you are, you absolute brainlet. You cannot change your sex, therefore the "social importance of your sex" does not change. Your dumb ass can't understand a basic analogy, apparently, so you're complaining I didn't walk you through a course in remedial reading comprehension so you could respond to what I actually said.
1 Hyliga 2018-09-21
It's a horrible analogy as it applies both to social and bio sex; in other words is treats them as one to make a point, whereas my point is that they aren't one in the first place. In addition now that you're leaving the "analogy" behind, the problems with your argument (obviously from my point of view) start appearing. Such as:
This would imply the muscular trans-male I linked to a while ago will be treated as a female in social situations, when that's clearly not the case. Unless you're willing to argue otherwise, you need to grant me that someone's biological sex can fail to match up with their perceived "social sex". Do you grant me this? Yes or no.
1 dramasexual 2018-09-21
The muscular trans male's entire psychology was shaped by being treated as a female throughout the most formative years of her life. This is massively more important to who she is than being perceived as a dude on the street by your average person. Some cisgender females are actually confused for male, and under your incredibly stupid argument, that would make them male.
Lying about something well enough to convince other people doesn't make your lie actually true.
1 Hyliga 2018-09-21
Let me get this straight; you're saying that the muscular trans-man will be treated as a female in social situations. Yes or no.
1 dramasexual 2018-09-21
Lol I'm sure you are.
Here, let me extend the earlier analogy.
Say the coyote that looks like a wolf is injured, and is taken in by a wildlife rescue organization. The coyote looks so much like a wolf that the group puts him in the wolf sanctuary with a wolf pack, feeds him wolf food, and gives him wolf-based medical treatment until someone looks closer and realizes he's actually a coyote.
Did the coyote's species change?
1 Hyliga 2018-09-21
Coyotes do not engage in complex social behavior, hence why your analogy is fallacious. We're talking bio-sex vs social sex, and you're coming to me with coyotes and wolves, and surprise surprise; they're relationship is purely biological. You might as well say "Well, a trans-man can not spread his semen so he's not a male". Which is true (I've said this a million times already), the discussion is hand is social versus biological sex.
Now please give a yes/no answer to my previous question.
1 Hyliga 2018-09-21
Nourishing and raising a coyote is nothing social, it's purely biological; hence why your analogy is fallacious. We're talking bio-sex vs social sex, and you're coming to me with nourishing coyotes. You might as well say "Well, a trans-man can not spread his semen so he's not a male". Which is true (I've said this a million times already), the discussion is hand is social versus biological sex.
This is exactly why I'm accusing you of not reading anything I wrote. You're failing to see how this argument got started- it was a discussion that was meant to differentiate bio and social sex. All you're doing is repeating "hurr durr bio sex can not be changed". Unless you cease repeating this irrelevant fact, this conversation is not going anywhere.
Now please give a yes/no answer to my previous question.
1 dramasexual 2018-09-21
There is no such thing as social sex, you fucking idiot. Even gender types don't call anything "social sex." It's like you're arguing the distinction between horses and dragons and getting mad that people aren't addressing your rambling nonsense conclusions because dragons don't fucking exist.
...both coyotes and wolves are social animals with complex pack dynamics fam. A coyote in a wolf pen will have a very different experience than a coyote in with other coyotes. I think the argument you're trying to make is that if the coyote were accepted by the wolves as a wolf, the coyote's species has now changed because its "social species" is now different.
1 Hyliga 2018-09-21
Intra-species, yes. But you're talking about humans raising the coyote, and that doesn't have anything to do with inter-species packs.
Funny thing about this is how long it took you to say this. Whether it exists or not has been the main issue of this debate, yet only now you've addressed it, and in addition you're pretending as if it was a given. Also "getting mad that people aren't addressing your rambling nonsense conclusions because dragons don't fucking exist" this isn't true, why would I get mad at you for making counter points against me? I was bothered by your attitude because you failed to see the main issue of hours.
Now we've come this far, please for the love of god answer my question.
or answer this other question
1 dramasexual 2018-09-21
I very clearly said this was a wild coyote who got injured and taken in by humans and put in with the wolves. The humans aren't raising anything. Seeeeriously basic reading comprehension here fam.
You made up this idea of social sex because you were trying to argue sex changes and couldn't do it without moving the goalposts. I even addressed your imaginary dragon earlier by talking about how a passing transperson was already fully treated as their sex during all of the important stages of development, so even if "social sex" were a thing, which it isn't, the referenced tranny's "social sex" hasn't changed either.
1 Hyliga 2018-09-21
No, you misread this thread. It has never been about changing bio-sex. I admitted bio-sex can not be changed even before I started talking to you.
You're not answering my question and committing on your tautology. Please help this conversation continue by answering the questions, because the fact that you're repeating yourself so often makes me think you've never seen a debate before.
1 dramasexual 2018-09-21
I'm not answering your question because your question is in bad faith. How about you address my coyote analogy in a way other than painfully misunderstanding it.
Do you even know what a tautology is?
1 Hyliga 2018-09-21
I'm ignoring coyotes because I don't think that's going to take us anywhere. I'm going to say "Coyotes can not think like humans and are limited to their biology, when the human mind is much more than our biological urges". You're probably going to say something among the lines of "We're still majorly affected by our biology & instincts". I'm going to give some examples to counter that notion, and you're going to do the same. Repeat ad nauseam. We can discuss it if you want to, but I'd rather not.
It isn't though. I want you to answer the question because I believe it'll take us the the heart of our disagreement, unlike the coyote analogy which is basically the same problem applied to other animals so it'll be the same discussion except with animals.
1 dramasexual 2018-09-21
Lmao you completely made up a really stupid argument that I was not at all pursuing and tried to attribute it to me.
Anyway this entire thing is retarded. Post bussy.
1 Hyliga 2018-09-21
What is this argument that I'm attributing to you? Look man I just wanted you to answer that question so we can resolve this.
1 dramasexual 2018-09-21
You know what I want? A hot girlfriend to lavish me with expensive gifts so I never have to pay for fancy clothes again. Until then, get your designer socks for 50% off at socksoff.com, the premiere discount sock site on the internet. We work for you! Socksoff.com
1 Hyliga 2018-09-21
Good point.
1 Pyroteknik 2018-09-21
There is no way to change your sex. Unless your a sponge or something. Mammals can't do it.
1 totallya_russianbot 2018-09-21
Transwomen aren't women, though. They're men, who are posing as women.
1 Van-Diemen 2018-09-21
"Assigned", as though the doctor flips a coin and arbitrarily magics you up a cock and balls.
1 Concrecia 2018-09-21
So, her blood would be a perfect match for another transgender in need! Think about it.
1 geraldo42 2018-09-21
If that were the case the FDA would require you to donate under your biological sex instead of the current recommendation to allow donors to donate under their self identified gender you fucking retard. Nice feels before reals. People get plasma from the other sex all the time. Possibly hormones are on the list of drugs that preclude you from donating but I doubt it. I only remember being asked about retinoids and a couple other things when I donated. I guarantee you that banning transsexuals was about perceived sexual activity, not drugs or biological sex.
1 captainpriapism 2018-09-21
omg its a social construct
so many people would get so confused if you told them race was a factor in blood donation
1 totallya_russianbot 2018-09-21
No one is assigned a biological sex/gender. You are what you are regardless of anyone's say so.
1 hendo144 2018-09-21
Its probably more about risk factors/behaviour with MtF’s and donating blood. Here in Norway mtf and gay people are not allowed to donate because of their behaviour in terms of sex; anal sex. Anal sex has a much higher transmission rate of HIV than anything else, bar vertically (mother to child).
1 TheMauveHand 2018-09-21
AIDS, Africa...
1 Humorlessness 2018-09-21
You realize that everyone has hormones in their blood, right?
1 shion005 2018-09-21
True, but this is male blood with female hormones and biological sex may be important for blood transfusions: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/blood-boundaries-should-transfusions-be-matched-by-sex/
1 de_licious_WOT 2018-09-21
hhhhhhhhhh not me retard
1 de_licious_WOT 2018-09-21
pure ownage
1 VidiotGamer 2018-09-21
It's not that, they actually have higher rates of HIV infection than gay men. Something like 49 times higher than the general population compared to 24 times higher according to the UN's "UNAIDS" prevention program and let's not even get started on Hep C...
This whole thing is stupid. She's not being discriminated against, this is not a place of public accommodation, it's a business that is buying a product (your blood plasma) and they have the right to choose which products they want to buy. If they want to screen out transexuals and gaymen and IV drug users because of the statistical chance their blood plasma will be worthless to them, then that's not discrimination, that's not wanting to pay for something you don't want.
1 Nadare3 2018-09-21
I would argue she is. Gay and trans' people are much more at risk, that's true, but they're not more at risk because they are gay and trans'. You don't suddenly develop HIV because you're gay or trans'. They're more at risk because gay and trans' people tend to have lifestyles more prone to having an infected blood.
A promiscuous straight person is much more at risk of having HIV than a "sexually sedentary" gay or trans' person, and I'm pretty sure that is part of the questions you have to answer. It honestly sounds like blood centers are being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.
1 VidiotGamer 2018-09-21
Then you'd be a fucking retard because there isn't a single definition of discrimination on the planet that forces someone to buy something from another person.
Hey, here's my Mt. Dew bottle filled with urine. It's only 100 dollars. What you don't want to buy it? Is it because I'm MEXICAN YOU RACIST PIECE OF SHIT??!?
How fucking stupid can someone be.
1 Nadare3 2018-09-21
No, but a definition ( Cambridge dictionary ) is this:
It fits. Gay and trans' people are treated different than other people based on them being from that group alone.
1 ffbtaw 2018-09-21
Discrimination is good, CMV.
1 watermark02 2018-09-21
A definition does not force you to do anything. Just because something is not against the law, doesn't mean it's not discrimination. And definitely there are so instances where excluding certain sellers could be legally actionable, I mean if the best qualified contractor for a certain job was rejected because they employed Jews they could definitely sue.
1 terminator755 2018-09-21
Oh fer sure 100% B, but it's justified.
1 Nadare3 2018-09-21
Again, I would say no, because being gay or trans' doesn't suddenly cause people to develop infections, it's having had new partners recently, or your partners themselves having had new partners (Or your partners' partners' having ha- okay you get it).
A gay guy who has sex regularly with another (faithful) gay guy is much less at risk than a promiscuous straight woman. Being able or not to give blood should be based on your (recent, since the real problem would be giving infected blood that does not yet have antibodies) sexual life.
The only exception I could see would be lesbians because lesbian sex has a very low rate of contamination (That is, having lesbian sex with someone else has some chance but not high of transmitting HIV). This means that even a woman who has been in a faithful relationship with another woman for long can be at a fairly significant risk of having contracted HIV in the last 3-4 months.
1 terminator755 2018-09-21
People who engage in homosexual sex are a statistically at-risk population.Gay and bisexual men accounted for 67% (26,570) of all diagnoses and 83% of HIV diagnoses among males. It's the responsibility of health organizations to prune the pool of applicants to the best of their ability in order to avoid the risk of infected blood somehow passing the testing phase.
Giving blood is not a right B. Look into it.
1 Nadare3 2018-09-21
I'm not denying they are at-risk, I am denying considering that risk being inherent to being homosexual.
Picture an HIV-free person. They enter in a (sexual) relationship, both parties faithful. A year later they want to donate blood, what are the odds their blood is infected, assuming their partner hasn't been tested for HIV ?
There's always a chance so long as their partner hasn't been tested, but the variations based on their sexes is extremely low (Except, as I explained earlier, in the case of lesbians because of the very low rate of transmission of lesbian sex).
Sure, if you sleep around a lot, the odds start being higher for gay people because the people they are having sex with are themselves on average more infected. But for people who aren't promiscuous and have been in a faithful relationship for long, the odds of being infected are very much the same as for straight people (Again, except in the case of lesbians).
I think the problem is seeing this as a gay/straight problem instead of a promiscuous/non-promiscuous problem, which is a relic of when HIV was considered the gay plague and all. And those are questions someone could very easily answer (And in fact I'm sure they already do) when donating blood. And sure, one could say they can lie, but they can already, can't they ?
Back to why this matters, I would say it does when donating blood is paid, as in the case in the USA. It is thus the equivalent of denying a job based solely on sexual orientation (Or gender identity in that case).
1 EarnestNoMeta 2018-09-21
you're a fuckin retard
1 terminator755 2018-09-21
I deny that as well, the risk lies in dudes having sex with each other.
Donating blood is not a job, and it isn't a right. It's a voluntary, altruistic act.
1 Nadare3 2018-09-21
Not when you're paid for it.
1 terminator755 2018-09-21
I never said otherwise, don't be so fucking dense.
A patient's right to receive a safe blood transfusion completely overrides someone's right to offer their aids infested blood for a few bucks.
1 Nadare3 2018-09-21
I know, but a man who has sex with men can give safe blood just as safely as straight people if enough safeguards are put in place regarding sexual "habits". I understand banning someone who actually has a higher-than-average risk of having infected blood, but that's just not the case of all men who have sex with men, and it's a fairly easy thing to check with a proper questionnaire.
1 watermark02 2018-09-21
Am I not allowed an opinion on the safety of the blood of the people who are being donated? Apparently only you are, when your beliefs are wildly out of tune with the FDA? And motivated likely entirely by bigotry, and not at all by science?
1 watermark02 2018-09-21
No one is claiming that donating blood is a right. The fact that it is not a right is not in itself a justification for passing whatever bans willy nilly you want regardless of evidence, reason, or the opinion of the scientific community.
1 watermark02 2018-09-21
You are trying to justify something by saying that it's not illegal, but that's not a justification. The individual in question here hasn't had sex with men. So she would not be disqualified by ordinary procedures, which simply ask if you're a man who had sex with a man in the last year. Putting restrictions above and beyond that is unnecessary. I mean it's not really purely gay men that are the problem, it's gay men who have sex with a lot of other gay men. Gay men that are celibate or monogamous are not really a problem. Trans women who are celibate or monogamous are not a problem either. That's why the FDA's guidelines exist. Why does this organization think it knows better than the FDA? Why do you simply blindly assume that their policy is 100% justified, just because you think the law doesn't ban it? I assume you're butthurt about Twitter censoring racists too.
1 shitsfuckedupalot 2018-09-21
They are also more at risk because of the type of sex they have. Anal sex has an increased rate of hiv transfer than PIV sex. Men and women can have anal sex but gay and trans people can Only have anal sex. And then if theyre post op well thats just an open fuckin wound.
1 Nadare3 2018-09-21
This is true, and I pointed this out for lesbian sex in other comments. However the difference isn't big enough to matter if you're not promiscuous. If you've been in a relationship long enough, you've likely had enough sex that the odds of transmission (Except in the case of lesbians) barely have any impact on your chances of having been infected.
Even for lesbians, I don't think it takes that long for infection to become a negligible risk, though probably a bit too long than would be practical. In fact one can calculate the number of sexual "instances" it takes to reach X chances of being infected given Y odds of not being infected per sexual "instance" with this formula: ln(X)/ln(Y) (Round up, obviously).
You can see that you can reach very high certainty even with fairly low odds of transmission easily enough given a long - and sexual, I guess - enough relationship.
1 shitsfuckedupalot 2018-09-21
Yeah and im pretty sure being a lesbian doesn't prevent you from giving blood. Just if you're a gay man. And in the eyes of biology trans women are gay men. Its a level of filtering they do ahead of time. Its a simple equation of cost vs risk. They could get more blood if they accepted blood from gay men but then there is an increased risk of hiv infected blood. Even with testing, the risk of getting sued if the test is incorrect is way higher than the benefit of getting blood from gay men. Its really not a hard equation to understand. Your equations are all based on the ideas that gay people are separated into promiscuous and non promiscuous populations. Its not like gays wear a scarlet letter when they're single. Its unrealistic. Gay people have higher than normal rates of hiv. Thats just how it is.
1 trilateral1 2018-09-21
the lord works in mysterious ways
1 _Leninade_ 2018-09-21
Imagine being this retarded
1 watermark02 2018-09-21
Imagine being unable to make a decent reply and posting this instead.
1 TheMauveHand 2018-09-21
I mean... for most intents and purposes they are gay men. Gay men with mental problems.
1 watermark02 2018-09-21
It is discrimination. Just because you consider a specific instance of discrimination reasonable, doesn't mean it's not discrimination.
1 WorldStarCroCop 2018-09-21
As a humble vampire, I get all my blood from the mentally ill. Got keep the status quo, even at a cell level.
1 computerbone 2018-09-21
I mean maybe you could use that as a defense of the companies actions if the company had made any defense of their actions.
1 Rad_Centrist_Mod 2018-09-21
It's good to know that if I ever need blood, I could grow tits and have my libido wrecked.
1 trilateral1 2018-09-21
They're trying to infect normal people with their cursed blood?
1 -4x- 2018-09-21
They're trying to infect our children with their disgusting T cells!
1 trilateral1 2018-09-21
artificial hormones
chemotherapy drugs to suppress the body's hormone production
high HIV prevalence, too
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
why are they always so ugly? I'd make a better woman than that.
1 OriginalRazzmatazz 2018-09-21
Prove it
1 shitpersonality 2018-09-21
Pizzashill already proved it.
1 rationalhuckleberry 2018-09-21
Do it
1 Alicesnakebae 2018-09-21
Post bussy
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
No, I feel gross ;_;
Remind me in seven months or so.
1 SarahWO 2018-09-21
coward
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
give me the time to prepare and remind me then
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
Preparing for prison huh?
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
not my fault when they're hot (and legal)
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
I sincerely hope you get hit by a Truck of Peace😑
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
why do you hate me so?
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
I have an extreme and justified hatred for pedophiles AND hebephiles considering the job I have. I'm the one who has to try to and help your victims and their families move on, I've seen kids attempt suicide because of subhuman trash like you, I've had to tell parents and guardians that their child or charge killed themselves because of subhuman trash like you. I've lost a relative because of subhuman pieces of shit like you. Pedophiles and Hebephiles like you, who justify preying on underage kids, who make excuse after excuse for their mental illness deserve every bit of hatred thrown at them. You can justify being mentally ill all you want, it won't change the fact that you're barely human and not worthy of the same rights afforded to human beings. The only good thing Hitler did was killing off members of your species.
1 aventafuera 2018-09-21
Keep going daddy I'm almost there.
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
Your flair is very accurate.
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
but I've done nothing wrong, unlike the people you're unjustifiedly comparing me to.
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
Yet. Your kind fucks up 99% of the time.
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
you're just looking for an excuse to hate me.
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
I have a really good one subhuman. Just like regular upstanding people have a reason to hate terrorists and gangbangers. Now why don't you're go defend more of your fellow subhumans?
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
I'm opposed to pedos too, I don't defend them.
E.g. yesterday I found this weirdo
https://www.reddit.com/user/whatacutiepatoottbh
1 LadySaberCat 2018-09-21
Hey you found a buddy
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
That dude is really gross, I already reported him too
1 LadySaberCat 2018-09-21
People have been reporting you also. You both deserve to be in prison. I bet if they got your computer they'd find child porn on it.
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
I've done literally nothing wrong, why would you say that? I also pretty much only watch JAV, which is professionally produced, so all actresses are >18. Meanwhile most guys out there who search for amateur teen porn on websites don't have this confirmation. That's because I'm concerned with the ethics of it (and also because I think Japanese women are pretty hot)
1 LadySaberCat 2018-09-21
Yet.
Because you're a scumbag hebephile with pedophilic tendencies and creepy ass kink for incest. You're an extremely sick person who either needs to be chemically castrated or needs to fucking killing themselves before you ruin someone's life or before you rape your niece.
Maybe you do but I don't doubt you have some illegal stuff on your computer.
Like yourself.
Bullshit.
You mean lolicon little girls since you're always defending lolicon.
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
I don't plan to.
not true, never said so, don't make stuff up.
What a fucked up thing to say, there's really something majorly wrong with you.
I mean cute, adult Japanese women
1 LadySaberCat 2018-09-21
It's always the ones who say they don't plan to.
You defend lolicon way too much to be an exclusive hebephile, there's some pedo tendencies there too. And I'm not making up anything.
People with your disorder can't be trusted.
Rich coming from you.
Until you find some poor underage Japanese girl and not some waifu pillow. I sincerely hope the girl can run fast or at the very least I hope she's illegally carrying a knife on her. You mentioned the shithole country in Europe that you're from doesn't allow people to carry weapons? I bet that makes you very happy.
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
sounds like you're quite knowledgeable about this. :Thinking:
I'd defend it as in saying that it shouldn't be illegal but I'd defend stuff like guro on the same reasons and I'm into neither. When I read doujins (which I don't do that often) it's ones with teenage girls (e.g. Megumin) and not legit lolis (like Shinobu).
Well there isn't anything wrong with me, so ...
I'd maybe ask her out or something but <18 is a bit young in general ...
yeah, being shot because of the color of my skin would suck. lol
1 [deleted] 2018-09-21
[removed]
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
One subhuman calling another subhuman a weirdo. You kind is so funny. It probably thinks you're trash too. I mean you are but that's besides the point here.
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
that guy defends fucking literal toddlers, wtf? I just have thing for small women
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
And appearantly underage "little sisters."
Still ironic when subhumans think other subhumans are bad.
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
I wouldn't mind some consensual little sister roleplay. Anyway, you think just because someone has a harmless link they can't judge others for legitimate fucked up stuff? I mean that dudes sick, as a future father of hapa daughters I'm worried about people like this.
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
"Consensual" sure. Thankfully you live in Europe so the chances of you being killed by a migrant who refuses to assimilate are pretty high. Of course he'll need to be jailed and executed for his crimes but that solves two problems at once. Two predators removed from society.
I find it ironic that you judge your fellow subhuman for being disgusting when you're not too much better. Neither of you are acceptable.
Ah so you plan on impregnating whatever unfortunate Asian girl you manage to kidnap? I'm guessing you'll probably urge her to get an abortion if you find out she'll have a boy.
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
They are actually extremely low. Much lower for instance than a burger being shot by his infant son with his own gun.
Having a preference for cute, petite women and wanting to rape a child aren't really on the same level, don't you think?
If that's what you call my future wife, yes, of course only if we're in agreement about our family plans. Personally I think 1-2 kids would be reasonable.
It's true that I'd much rather have hapa daughters but simply because I only want the best for my future kids and hapa girls seem to have it somewhat easier in our Western societies than hapa guys. But if it should be a boy I of course would still love and support him all the same.
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
And your bitch ass tapped out.
1 KiruKokujin 2018-09-21
maybe im a pedo but at least im not a cautist
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
Fucking called it. Explains all the White Knighting.
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2018-09-21
Yeah but you like Stars Wars a whole lot, which is weird and gross in adults.
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
Eh I just picked sith because AlphaOmegaMaul sounded too much like a furry name.
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2018-09-21
Christfags get out
Day of The Cross when?
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
Dude I'm not even a Christian
1 LadySaberCat 2018-09-21
Please let the subhuman be the only casualty
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
One can hope. It lives in Europe so hopefully a jihadist will mow it down.
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
I'll say it again, it's weird af to talk to yourself
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
And you're mildly retarded if you think I'm talking to myself.
Pedophiles and hebephiles aren't people. Don't like it? Too fucking bad, it.
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
I'm not a hebephile and you're not exactly subtle about using your alts, lol
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
Still lying huh?
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
where did I ever say I was?
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
Proof is in the comments. You say the only reason you go for tiny women is because your family would know you like 14-year olds.
And since you think people who don't like you are alts then explain how I'm able to post at different times from 50 different alts? Or more if you counts the downvotes and hostility from justneckbeardthings. Can you explain that?
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
No, because they're my type. Adult women with a petite bodytype are still adult women, mentally developed and stuff, that's what matters.
It's more like this account and ~2 alts or so?
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
Mentally developed but you like to talk about underage girls all the time. You only recently started talking about adults because people called you out for being subhuman.
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
No, and it's one thing to possibly find them attractive and another to act on it. Just saying.
1 [deleted] 2018-09-21
[removed]
1 LadySaberCat 2018-09-21
The "multiple people dislike me so they're all alts" excuse.
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
That's the route it's going.
1 LadySaberCat 2018-09-21
Of course.
1 LadySaberCat 2018-09-21
If that happens, do we necessarily have to call the jihadist a bad guy or just an accidental good guy? I mean jihadists are evil obviously but so are pedos and hebes.
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
No he's still evil but inadvertently does the civilized world a favor.
1 LadySaberCat 2018-09-21
Agreed
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2018-09-21
/u/KiruKokujin mind talking with your girlfriend here?
1 LadySaberCat 2018-09-21
So you were lying about this shit too?
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
about what, that I'm pretty fit? I am, however if I post pics I'd like to be a bit leaner than atm.
1 LadySaberCat 2018-09-21
..........I seriously doubt that.
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
I don't really care what you think since I'm not interested in you. If you're having a better time when I fit your mental stereotype of whatever you want to call me then good for you.
1 LadySaberCat 2018-09-21
Yet you replied back anyway. Guess you care more than you think.
1 [deleted] 2018-09-21
[removed]
1 moddestmouse 2018-09-21
remindme! in 4 years
1 RemindMeBot 2018-09-21
I will be messaging you on 2022-09-21 16:17:45 UTC to remind you of this link.
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
1 e-guy 2018-09-21
Just take your girlpills and find out.
They're cheap, easy to get, and do wonders for your skin. Not even trans, but would highly recommend.
1 TERF_facts 2018-09-21
Yeah but you think all secondary sex characteristics are gross and your opinions are garbage. If I had to choose between you and trannies, I would pick trannies every day of the week
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-09-21
don't shame me for my preferences.
1 LadySaberCat 2018-09-21
Trannies are a few levels above pedo on the Anti-PC Totem Poll. Trannies are where the line is draw, anyone after it's highly suspect.
1 TheMauveHand 2018-09-21
Because only the ones that are particularly nuts complain about this sort of inconsequential bullshit and their extreme lunacy means they lack the will or ability to take care of themselves physically.
1 Luminous01 2018-09-21
Men who wish they were biological women are not female. Biology is important and real it's not fairy tail make believe. That trans will always be a man no matter how long their braid or how much lipstick they put on.
1 Alicesnakebae 2018-09-21
If this was twitter you would be blasted for being anti trans
1 E_G_Never 2018-09-21
Not certain, but I'm pretty sure we're not on twitter
1 Alicesnakebae 2018-09-21
That's why I said, If
1 Valdien 2018-09-21
yet*
1 rileykard 2018-09-21
What a Happy mistake
1 Hozenzi 2018-09-21
I got that, should I off myself unironically?
1 rileykard 2018-09-21
I'd be disappointed if you didn't
1 Luminous01 2018-09-21
;)
1 ApugalypseNow 2018-09-21
Biology > sociology
1 TERF_facts 2018-09-21
wow what a hateful, bigoted opinion
1 Luminous01 2018-09-21
Why cant people be okay with their biology and shatter sex based stereotypes? I don't care to see a dude in a dress or doing body modifications to their chest or whatever, more power too them but when you deny biology and then try to sue people in the medical field for doing their job that's a problem.
Did you know that female blood can harm male bodied people? Males that recieve female blood have a higher mortality rate. There are differences between male and female bodied people and it's not bigoted to know this, it's just reality.
1 TheToiletStoreCo 2018-09-21
Are you new?
1 gemininature 2018-09-21
It's always the "lesbian" trans women doing this shit, what's up with that?
1 serial_crusher 2018-09-21
Does plasma donation have the same rules as blood donation, where you can't donate if you're "a man who has had sex with another man"? That would be an interesting argument to see play out in court.
​
Oh who am I kidding. With a mug like that, there's no chance this person is having sex with any men or women.
1 trilateral1 2018-09-21
1 hendo144 2018-09-21
Yes, same reasoning as with donating blood.
1 ObnoxiousFactczecher 2018-09-21
But they're clearly not discriminating based on gender identity if other women are allowed to donate, right?
1 ApugalypseNow 2018-09-21
He looks like a Throckmorton.
1 PracticalOnions 2018-09-21
Tbh these people get ripped up by the medical community on average so this is nothing new and I doubt he’ll win the lawsuit
1 Methadol 2018-09-21
She'd hate Canada. We don't accept blood from gays and people with new tattoos or drug users. And our medical if free. But 20-30 years ago when they did accept blood from everyone,they got overwhelmed and ended up infecting thousands with hepatitis c Better safe then thousands young and old dying from a transfusion
1 degorius 2018-09-21
'donate' Trying to make sound altruistic, she was just looking to sell her blood/plasma because she needed money
1 totallya_russianbot 2018-09-21
Why are you calling a man a "she"?
1 backltrack 2018-09-21
There's probably a good reason why theyre deferred permanently. Just like with male homosexuals who are sexually active. Taking prep isn't enough lol
1 OdinSQL 2018-09-21
Not wanting to be sued for giving people AIDS is transphobic!
1 computerbone 2018-09-21
This title has nothing to do with the article and neither do the comments in this thread.
1 TERF_facts 2018-09-21
does the article not talk about a tranny whose plasma donation was denied who is suing the company?
1 computerbone 2018-09-21
It said they wouldn't take her plasma as a woman, in the article it says they wouldn't take her plasma at all and she was banned, in the comments it says they wouldn't take her plasma because tranny plasma is unsafe. I don't even care about transfolk but we just look stupid making jokes based on a misleading headline.
1 TERF_facts 2018-09-21
you must be new here
1 UnpopularOpinons 2018-09-21
>based
​
>tranny
​
lets not forget these are the people whos micropenises get hard when countries talk about jailing people for misgendering them.