It’ll become mainstream in a generation perhaps even faster than that. Social progress (the degradation of social rules) has moved entirely step in step with the progress of technology. As technology continues to accelerate, so will the bizarreness of human expression in the world we’ve made for ourselves.
Your comment has been removed because it contained a bad word. The word was trans. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep /r/drama safe.
I feel like everyone will eventually just be able to identify with whatever they want that this new equity grift will be impossible and we'll have to go back to treating people equally.
There’s already a similar framework where you have sex/gender and then ethnicity/race, where one is supposedly objective while the other is socially constructed but both are seen as the same to the average person. That being said, I doubt it will ever become mainstream beyond an albino person identifying as ‘black’.
Good. I want t slur racialism to blow up. Either I get the n word pass or we go back to our natal sex references
Edit : anyone who thinks tslur genders and t slur racialism aren't the exact same please prove it. Both are social constructs created by allegedly arbitrary parameters
I for one want identifying as other species or inanimate objects to take flight. It’s long overdue I can’t become a lion or a Glock to be more alpha. #transpexies #transobjext
I’ve always wondered if there was an alternative universe where otherkins took off instead of t-slurs. In 2012, they were both about the same status, so could otherkin have made the jump instead? Would our politicians have their spirit animals in their bio, or maybe meows and barks?
Edit : anyone who thinks tslur genders and t slur racialism aren't the exact same please prove it.
There's no evolutionary reason to expect a neural mechanism that makes people act according to their race (whatever that might mean). There's a very good reason to expect a mechanism that makes people act and otherwise present in a way attractive to members of the opposite sex, same as the mechanism that makes people attracted to the opposite sex. In fact it's weird to believe that gays are real but tslurs are not when it's two sides of the same coin.
Procreation my dude, in a missionary position through a hole in the bedsheet, like Darwin intended. But yeah, correctly putting the dick into a vagina (and vice versa) is the single most important thing optimized for by evolution, so you should expect most people to be heterosexual and cisgender, and also expect that since the brain and genitalia are different organs, sometimes they don't match.
This is truscum/transmedicalist bullshit, you don't need gender dysphoria to be transgender and you don't need racial dysphoria to be transracial. Also gay people aren't real.
It's supposed to explain the general desire to be an attractive person of a particular gender (which may or may not match your genitalia), I guess when this desire is frustrated you can get dysphoria.
Though as a matter of fact this theory doesn't directly predict the body dysmorphia aspect of gender dysphoria, since cisgender people don't have control over their genitals anyway so it's evolutionarily pointless to have any psychological drives related to them. But brains are weird so who knows.
You're like those AIs that generate syntactically correct text but with no semantic meaning.
general desire to be an attractive person of a particular gender (which may or may not match your genitalia), I guess when this desire is frustrated you can get dysphoria.
When a man is too ugly to be a man he wants to become a woman? ??
You could've said this two comments ago the earlier ones really make no sense. And the point of the tweet is that now you dont have to have a "female identifying brain" to be train, you dont have to have dysphoria. So its really no different from claiming you're a different race.
Also the brain theory isnt established science.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-03/rfuo-msr032521.php ^ "true, not what is politically convenient"
Call me back when they manage to distinguish homo and heterosexuals with good precision, but not cis and transgenders.
There's very little difference between the brains of cis men and transwomen. There's a lot of difference between the brains of straight males and gay males.
After controlling for sexual orientation, the transgender groups showed sex-typical FA-values.
After controlling for sexual orientation, the transgender groups showed sex-typical FA-values. The only exception was the right inferior fronto-occipital tract, connecting parietal and frontal brain areas that mediate own body perception. Our findings suggest that the neuroanatomical signature of transgenderism is related to brain areas processing the perception of self and body ownership, whereas homosexuality seems to be associated with less cerebral sexual differentiation.
Huh, that's interesting. Heterosexual males and females are very different though. Idk if looking at these differences solely due to the virtue of their existence is meaningful, especially when in some very different cases the procedure reveals no differences, but pretty interesting nevertheless.
I'm not sure what it has to do with the present discussion though.
First of all, they were able to distinguish cis and transgenders.
Second, that's not "brain categories" and definitely not brain categories corresponding to gender. They looked at one particular property that happens to be statistically different between straight men and women, but is very similar in homosexuals of either sex. Which is interesting but definitely doesn't let us to talk like we've discovered what male and female brains are. Because last I checked a lot of gay guys were definitely very male.
Your comment has been removed because it contained a bad word. The word was trans. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep /r/drama safe.
Both the hard science and basic reasoning skills support the idea that it's not possible to have an authentically "female-identifying brain" in the absence of a female body.
And if you cite Zhou et alia, I swear to God I will pay somebody to make a snuff film out of sheer spite.
Why are you people so upset at simple explanations?
How does "I was cursed with a terminal case of f*idbrain at conception" raise fewer questions than "you have a sexed body, and your reactions to your sexed body, whether positive or negative, affect your brain"?
non-r-slurred feminists being unilaterally banned from r*ddit is evidence that they are wrong and immoral and cannot think rationally
My favorite part is not that you wrote three replies to me, it's that you wrote two, seethed for more than an hour, then couldn't help yourself and wrote this one. You are mad, terf!
Like sexual arousal and neural pathways built by a feedback loop established over a period of many, many years between the brain and the genitals one actually possesses?
This should apply to homosexuality too. My point is that being successful at reproduction means that you have to a) be attracted to the traits of the opposite sex, and b) demonstrate traits attractive to the opposite sex. A male nightingale should sing and should not seek singing nightingales. A female nightingale should not sing herself (because that would attract no males) and should seek singing nightingales.
Humans have it even worse than nightingales because a good half of our gender presentation is culturally determined, like dress, hairstyle, makeup, behavior to an extent. So our genes don't just construct a brain that sings like a male nightingale or presents its cloaca like a singer's groupie, but has to learn stereotypically male and female culturally determined traits.
Ask your token male friend (if you have that) what exactly are his thoughts about showing up to the prom night dressed in a sundress. Whatever he says is going to go along the lines "girls will see me as a freak and not sleep with me, forever". Not dressing yourself in a sundress is an important part of cismale psyche because of the reproductive consequences.
Baby-terfs* like you hold a nonsensical position where one side of the equation "get attracted to, be attractive to", is considered to be largely immutable "yeah we lesbians were born this way", while the other is entirely socially determined. No, you can't make arguments against the existence of trains people without also showing how they don't deny the existence of lesbians. If you feel very strongly about the prospect of sucking a girldick, and you're pretty sure that it isn't a mere preference created by social conditioning, then you can't just deny the existence of strong opinions about own girldick in the trainswomen's heads.
[*]: trve oldskvl terfs deny the existence of lesbians. They are wrong but at least consistent. You are both wrong and inconsistent.
What's more likely: that an increasing number of young women are being tricked by an amoral medical-industrial complex and a corrupt and decadent culture into thinking that people will take them more seriously if they pay big money to get their tits cut off and take testosterone for the rest of their lives, and that their little online echo chambers enable them to convince themselves that they're "becoming their true selves" in doing so, or that these women have accidentally had a "penis brain" implanted in place of a "vagina brain"?
This might surprise you, but we could be living in the world where there are totally true "wrong-gendered brain" trainspeople AND some autogynephilic horny moids AND some young foids attracted to popularity like moths to a flame, on account of their "vagina brains" (your words, not mine). I totally agree with you that the immense growth of FtM kids seems to be a fad and pretty harmful (though you made this your bed, I have little sympathy about you having to lie in it) but disagree with your belief that genuine trainssexuality doesn't exist.
Why are you people so upset at simple explanations? Was that what got you expelled from 109 subreddits?
non-r-slurred feminists being unilaterally banned from r*ddit is evidence that they are wrong and immoral and cannot think rationally
Umm...are you sure about that?
I meant the antisemitic MDEfugees but terfs fit that trope too, sure.
Correct me if some of your arguments fell through the cracks between the three seething comments I had to reply to.
I'll leave it to an impartial outside observer to judge, but it appears to me that the seething and coping isn't coming from my end.
Not dressing yourself in a sundress is an important part of cismale psyche because of the reproductive consequences.
I remember reading a paper about how homo habilis took drastic measures to avoid sundresses.
Baby-terfs* like you hold a nonsensical position where one side of the equation "get attracted to, be attractive to", is considered to be largely immutable "yeah we lesbians were born this way", while the other is entirely socially determined.
Never said that. I have no problems with the genuine possibility that the development of sexual orientation has a strong experiential component.
No, you can't make arguments against the existence of trains people without also showing how they don't deny the existence of lesbians.
I haven't, but I can.
If you feel very strongly about the prospect of sucking a girldick, and you're pretty sure that it isn't a mere preference created by social conditioning, then you can't just deny the existence of strong opinions about own girldick in the trainswomen's heads.
I'm not denying the existence of an obsession among trains with their girldicks. I'm denying that it's the result of ladybrain, dipshit.
trve oldskvl terfs deny the existence of lesbians. They are wrong but at least consistent. You are both wrong and inconsistent.
Somehow I'm getting the sense that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Name a terf who denies the existence of lesbians.
I totally agree with you that the immense growth of FtM kids seems to be a fad and pretty harmful (though you made this your bed, I have little sympathy about you having to lie in it) but disagree with your belief that genuine trainssexuality doesn't exist.
I have no idea how I am responsible for the explosion of trains-identified females, so you'll have to spell that one out for me.
It's not that I believe that people of gender don't exist. I just don't believe that it's caused by having a "female brain" in a male body, because that's fucking cartoon physics nonsense, and the science backs me up here.
I'll leave it to an impartial outside observer to judge, but it appears to me that the seething and coping isn't coming from my end.
You reported one of my comments above to the Anti-Evil Operations and the poor confused pajeets deleted it! If that's not seething I don't know what is. I on the other hand have nothing to cope with actually.
Not dressing yourself in a sundress is an important part of cismale psyche because of the reproductive consequences.
I remember reading a paper about how homo habilis took drastic measures to avoid sundresses.
Have you tried reading the paragraph immediately preceding the quote?
I have no problems with the genuine possibility that the development of sexual orientation has a strong experiential component.
Like, you were taught that it's unterflike to suck a dick by your terf mom or something?
I mean, people are different and everything, but as a superstraight male I'm pretty sure that I have an instinctive revulsion to the idea of kissing another male or sucking his dick, or a girldick for that matter. Your theory about development of gender doesn't match my experience at all. Plus there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer for example.
(note btw that of course it's possible to fuck people up in various ways, that doesn't say anything about the natural development. Just because a malnourished kid will grow into a manlet doesn't disprove a strong genetic determinant of height in healthy people)
I have no idea how I am responsible for the explosion of trains-identified females, so you'll have to spell that one out for me.
Ideas have consequences, sweaty. First you needed to fight the "women belong in the kitchen" idea and you invented the "gender is a social construct" mantra, flat out denying any possibility of biological basis for psychological differences, so no such thing as "ladybrains". But like a genie, the idea just wouldn't stay in its terfy box that basically reduced the essence of a woman to having a front hole, the denial of reality based on pure ideology attracted various postmodernists who proclaimed that if gender isn't real then anyone can be any gender they want, even an attack helicopter! So there you have it.
I just don't believe that it's caused by having a "female brain" in a male body, because that's fucking cartoon physics nonsense, and the science backs me up here.
Do you seriously believe that humans are the only animal on the planet who have their gender expression entirely socially constructed? Or are you railing against a caricature that you created yourself?
Not dressing yourself in a sundress is an important part of cismale psyche because of the reproductive consequences.
I remember reading a paper about how homo habilis took drastic measures to avoid sundresses.
Have you tried reading the paragraph immediately preceding the quote?
I'm not going to be trapped into defending my rhetoric as though I had made a serious attempt at a rational argument.
as a superstraight male I'm pretty sure that I have an instinctive revulsion to the idea of kissing another male or sucking his dick, or a girldick for that matter. Your theory about development of gender doesn't match my experience at all.
You're saying that you have a personal aversion to sucking dick, and therefore that aversion must be genetic. There are large gaps in your reasoning.
Also, I haven't given you my "theory of gender development", so I don't know how it could possibly match your experience.
political lesbians are examples of lesbians who say lesbians don't exist
I just wanted to highlight this.
Ideas have consequences, sweaty. First you needed to fight the "women belong in the kitchen" idea and you invented the "gender is a social construct" mantra, flat out denying any possibility of biological basis for psychological differences blah blah blah words words words that I was aching to spew forth verbatim before you even responded
Do you seriously believe that humans are the only animal on the planet who have their gender expression entirely socially constructed? Or are you railing against a caricature that you created yourself?
Look, you've somehow got it into your head, or at least you are expressing the idea that there are two options: genetic determinism and pure social construction.
You're of a genetic determinist bent (yes, yes, I know you don't actually think it's that simple) and you are casting me in a hardline social constructionist position without my participation simply because I disagree with your fairly rigid genetic determinism.
There are entire fields of study--epigenetics, human behavioral biology, and human developmental biology--that focus on the many, many layers in between "it's all in the genes" and "we're just conditioned to do it like that".
All I have to do in order to disbelieve in ladybrain (or, more specifically, the idea that a ladybrain can spontaneously form in a phenotypically normal male body) is be slightly more educated on those intermediary topics than you.
And I'm sorry for implying that you were a Jordan Peterson fan. That was out of line.
Your comment has been removed because it contained a bad word. The word was trans. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep /r/drama safe.
Your comment has been removed because it contained a bad word. The word was trans. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep /r/drama safe.
I'm not going to be trapped into defending my rhetoric as though I had made a serious attempt at a rational argument.
Lolwhat? My objection was not to the form but to the contents of the argument--which, yes, is a valid rational argument, even though wrong--which contents I actually addressed right before.
You're saying that you have a personal aversion to sucking dick, and therefore that aversion must be genetic. There are large gaps in your reasoning.
I'm presenting it as evidence that needs explaining. It would be especially in need of explaining if you had a similar aversion to girldick and had to turn your abstract statements about how gender is formed into a factual account of how you personally ended up with that aversion.
There's other evidence, for example the already mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer, in which case you should explain how your theory of gender produced by genitalia and socialization explains why the guy eventually detrainsitioned despite having no male genitalia or socialization since infancy.
political lesbians are examples of lesbians who say lesbians don't exist
I just wanted to highlight this.
Words can have wider or narrower meanings. If you define a lesbian as a woman who more or less exclusively has sex with women, then of course political lesbians are lesbians. However a narrower definition is usually used, where a lesbian is a woman who is more or less exclusively sexually attracted to women. Political lesbians obviously are not lesbian in this sense because they choose to only have sex with women not because of their sexual preferences but because they are bisexuals who hate men and trainswomen. Those of them who advocate for political lesbianism for all women believe that heterosexual women (and by extension lesbians) don't exist.
Now, it is possible that I was wrong and you're actually one of those, in which case it's understandable why you deny that you don't suck girldick simply because you hate trainswomen, but it would be nice if you didn't waste my time with dissembling arguments.
Otherwise you should admit that yes, those people exist, believe what they believe, and that your own position appears to be an inconsistent partial copy of theirs.
you are casting me in a hardline social constructionist position without my participation simply because I disagree with your fairly rigid genetic determinism.
All I have to do in order to disbelieve in ladybrain (or, more specifically, the idea that a ladybrain can spontaneously form in a phenotypically normal male body) is be slightly more educated on those intermediary topics than you.
No, you're not taking an intermediary position. An intermediary position by definition admits that there is some physiological contribution to gender identification, that to some extent we are like nightingales who just sing instinctively, without the society teaching them nor developing an urge to sing as a result of looking at their own genitals for a prolonged period of time. And since as I said the brain and the genitals are separate organs it is possible to get a mismatch. You take a hardline position fundamentally denying that possibility, pointing at layers between genes and gender expression doesn't change anything.
In fact my position requires me to enthusiastically acknowledge the existence of those layers and the complicated way genotype interacts with environment to produce phenotype, because after all trains people have the mismatched genotype! I'm also open to the ideas of "cis by default" and "hetero by default", that a lot of people don't have strong feelings about their gender or sexual attraction and just go along with what society tells them, and I'm pretty sure that a significant number of homosexuals do "reproduce by raping kids" as Snappy puts it. But on the other hand I'm also pretty sure that a lot of people are "born this way", and sometimes it doesn't match their genitals.
By the way, just to be sure, you aren't arguing against a much more expansive idea of "ladybrain" than what I'm talking about, that does in fact involve proclivities for sandwich making etc, besides basic gender identity?
No, you're not taking an intermediary position. An intermediary position by definition admits that there is some physiological contribution to gender identification, that to some extent we are like nightingales who just sing instinctively
I have literally never denied that there was a physiological component.
And since as I said the brain and the genitals are separate organs it is possible to get a mismatch. You take a hardline position fundamentally denying that possibility
Your position assumes that the brain maps the genitals in anticipation of their existence, i.e. the brain is set up to "expect" a certain type of genitals.
Not only is there zero empirical evidence of such a mechanism, but this runs counter to the present underpinnings of our understanding of neurophysiological development.
Consider a situation in which you are born with a deformed, underdeveloped arm. Does the brain develop its proprioceptive model of the arm in advance, according to some platonic ideal model of an arm, stored somewhere in the genes?
No. It does not. It works with the arm that actually develops. It maps it in space after the malformed limb has appeared, and not in anticipation of its existence.
According to your model, it should be the norm that people with bodies that are morphologically irregular experience a kind of dysphoria in which they perceive a disparity between those irregularities and that platonic ideal which is inscribed in their genes.
This is not the norm. Dysphoria of this kind is not present in the vast majority of cases. The sensation of phantom limbs, phantom pain, etc all refer to a network of nerves which at one point actually existed, but does not currently exist. It was given the time to make its presence known to the brain, to make its impression felt, and then it was taken away.
The reverse--the sensation of something which is not there and which has never been there to make an impression upon the nervous system, which has never had the opportunity to develop a relationship with the brain, is a categorically different phenomenon. It does have correlations with specific single nucleotide polymorphisms and polygentic aggregates, but those genetic variants are associated with things that are generally agreed to be pathological in nature and which originate in the brain (dysphoria, schizophrenia, psychosis, etc)
By the way, just to be sure, you aren't arguing against a much more expansive idea of "ladybrain" than what I'm talking about, that does in fact involve proclivities for sandwich making etc, besides basic gender identity?
Unless you define "gender identity" as "having a relationship with your body", I am rejecting the notion that "gender identity" describes anything coherent whatsoever for more than 99% of the population. I do not have a "gender identity", and I believe this to be true of everyone who does not experience intense dysphoria.
David Reimer has his genitals mutilated in an ill-conceived attempt to correct the psychological impact of an earlier mutilation of his genitals. He did not consent to tr@nsition, and he cannot therefore be said to have meaningfully "detr@nsitioned".
He didn't "tr@nsition" or "detr@nsition" due to a mismatch between his brain's expectations about what his genitals ought to be and what they actually were.
He committed suicide after a lifetime of systematic institutional abuse.
And, FYI, many "political lesbians" are celibate in practice.
Unless you define "gender identity" as "having a relationship with your body", I am rejecting the notion that "gender identity" describes anything coherent whatsoever for more than 99% of the population.
95% of the population behaves in a gendered way in order to attract mates. That is their gender identity. If you look at it this way there's nothing mysterious or circular about the gotcha question "what does it mean to identify as a woman, besides identifying as a woman?": you have a straight female gender identity if you want to present yourself in a way that makes straight males horny and lusting after you. About half of that is culture-dependent of course, but this is fine for the theory and you conceded your objection.
Your position assumes that the brain maps the genitals in anticipation of their existence, i.e. the brain is set up to "expect" a certain type of genitals.
Ah, I see a major point of misunderstanding. My position doesn't concern itself with mapping of genitals whatsoever, I clearly stated that it doesn't in fact provide a direct explanation of the body dysmorphia aspect of gender dysphoria.
What I'm concerned about is how the brain figures out that you have to have long hair, wear frilly dresses and fancy hats, have an hourglass figure, speak in a high voice, act flirty in a particular way, and so on, and so forth. And, similarly, how does it figure that you have to be attracted to humans who do those things and not attracted to humans who do the opposite things.
There's no "limb" that the brain can imprint on here, this behavior doesn't even begin to be exhibited in earnest before puberty, and it's much, much more reasonable to assume that the relevant neuronal circuitry is formed in utero in response to say testosterone level* than as a result of looking at your own genitals now and then during childhood. And so if something goes wrong with that, if you're at the wrong t-level at the expected beginning of some chemical cascade, you get the mismatched brain circuit.
So if that's true then I'd expect the dissatisfaction with one's genitals to be strictly downstream of the desire to perform the preferred gender role. It's like you went 90% of the way to be an attractive woman but that damned dangly thing is still a dealbreaker for most guys.
He didn't "tr@nsition" or "detr@nsition" due to a mismatch between his brain's expectations about what his genitals ought to be and what they actually were.
He detransitioned by presenting as male in all respects besides his genitals. The mismatch was not between his brain and his genitals (sorry for phrasing it like that before, I though that it was an acceptable simplification), it was between his brain and his presented gender, of which the genitals were a small part.
[*]: regarding in utero testosterone, here's one of my most favorite graphs: https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/105820/fpsyg-05-01011-HTML/image_m/fpsyg-05-01011-g001.jpg which compares the digit ratios of normal women, normal men, and feminist conference attendees. The whole article is fun to read, this is as close as Science ever got to declaring that radfems claiming that women are not psychologically different from men are totally right about that, but only regarding themselves.
a mechanism that makes people act and otherwise present in a way attractive to members of the opposite sex
Like sexual arousal and neural pathways built by a feedback loop established over a period of many, many years between the brain and the genitals one actually possesses?
What's more likely: that an increasing number of young women are being tricked by an amoral medical-industrial complex and a corrupt and decadent culture into thinking that people will take them more seriously if they pay big money to get their tits cut off and take testosterone for the rest of their lives, and that their little online echo chambers enable them to convince themselves that they're "becoming their true selves" in doing so, or that these women have accidentally had a "penis brain" implanted in place of a "vagina brain"?
Hint: that first sentence goes a long way in explaining heterosexuality, homosexuality, and people of gender.
Cults can get people to sincerely believe some crazy shit.
I’m more surprised he found a medical professional willing to go along with it. But I guess a lot of the plastic surgery guys are just in it for the money, so
Race transition cosmetics are fairly common in most countries, though generally aiming for a white aesthetic. As far as plastic surgery goes, this is far from the least moral thing approved.
The people of North Korea are actually well fed and it's capitalist propaganda that they are starving while Kim stuffs his fat face with decadent treats. If it were true that was happening then it wouldn't be true communism.
Your comment has been removed because it contained a bad word. The word was trans. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep /r/drama safe.
Your comment has been removed because it contained a bad word. The word was trans. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep /r/drama safe.
137 comments
259 hackfraud30011999 2021-06-28
Men already destroyed women’s sport by letting 🚂s participate in them
Now mayos will wreck minorities heritage by supporting trainsracial people
Based
166 Llamayoda 2021-06-28
These people have reaped what they’ve sown.
54 10z20Luka 2021-06-28
Right now it's all fun and games because it's upsetting to the vast majority of people.
But this could become mainstream in a generation. I don't know if I can go along with that.
57 Llamayoda 2021-06-28
It’ll become mainstream in a generation perhaps even faster than that. Social progress (the degradation of social rules) has moved entirely step in step with the progress of technology. As technology continues to accelerate, so will the bizarreness of human expression in the world we’ve made for ourselves.
26 LeDarkElbow 2021-06-28
There will be one thing holding it back tho. The fear of committing blackface. Asians might get rolled tho.
19 redditisgay42069 2021-06-28
Uncle Ted, how’d you get here?
7 UnheardIdentity 2021-06-28
Ted saw 🚉 and knew she was interested.
2 UncleTedsBackup 2021-06-28
See, it started with some dumbass making steam. One thing led to another, and some computer shoo owner lost his hands.
1 [deleted] 2021-06-28
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2021-06-28
Your comment has been removed because it contained a bad word. The word was
trans. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep /r/drama safe.I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
11 sgvjosetel1 2021-06-28
I feel like everyone will eventually just be able to identify with whatever they want that this new equity grift will be impossible and we'll have to go back to treating people equally.
9 molested_by_clowns 2021-06-28
A generation? We are moving forward at an alarming rate, a few years ago 🚂🚉🚃 were a joke and now they are mainstream. I'll give it 10 to 15 years
3 RedditIsAJoke69 2021-06-28
I cant wait for first MMA murder
3 PenilePain2674 2021-06-28
If this CRISPR shit catches on, there would be atleast half a million mayoids speaking mandarin
2 UncleTedsBackup 2021-06-28
Blackface is heckin cute and valid, bigot💝💘💝
25 aqouta 2021-06-28
They've reaped some of what they've sown, but there is so much more just about to sprout.
12 jubbergun 2021-06-28
Inshallah
100 Unironic_IRL_Jannie 2021-06-28
Dramacoin is getting more and more backing everyday. We will soon be the world's reserve currency
37 vrzv 2021-06-28
Inshallah 🤲🕋
26 [deleted] 2021-06-28
[deleted]
19 Fortizen 2021-06-28
Under no circumstances can dudes ever stop rocking
9 AugustinesBitchBoy 2021-06-28
There’s already a similar framework where you have sex/gender and then ethnicity/race, where one is supposedly objective while the other is socially constructed but both are seen as the same to the average person. That being said, I doubt it will ever become mainstream beyond an albino person identifying as ‘black’.
14 hackfraud30011999 2021-06-28
Leftoids definitely have arguments against this but those arguments could also be used against certain group with a 50% suicide rate
199 1998Sublime 2021-06-28
Good. I want t slur racialism to blow up. Either I get the n word pass or we go back to our natal sex references
Edit : anyone who thinks tslur genders and t slur racialism aren't the exact same please prove it. Both are social constructs created by allegedly arbitrary parameters
70 V8_Only 2021-06-28
I for one want identifying as other species or inanimate objects to take flight. It’s long overdue I can’t become a lion or a Glock to be more alpha. #transpexies #transobjext
31 Eastern_Emotion6906 2021-06-28
Apache attack helicopter used to be a meme
26 [deleted] 2021-06-28
[deleted]
17 jubbergun 2021-06-28
Makes sense, given that an attack helicopter could completely wreck a train.
13 thenortheastface 2021-06-28
#NOTALLTRAINS
26 vrzv 2021-06-28
Why not as a V8? 🤔
15 PMWaffle 2021-06-28
V12 or bust
11 jubbergun 2021-06-28
Because no one likes vegetable juice unless it's combined with vodka and hot sauce with a big piece of celery sticking out of it.
18 quitsocmedia 2021-06-28
I’ve always wondered if there was an alternative universe where otherkins took off instead of t-slurs. In 2012, they were both about the same status, so could otherkin have made the jump instead? Would our politicians have their spirit animals in their bio, or maybe meows and barks?
2 remicx 2021-06-28
furry dystopia would be kind of epic
6 Unironic_IRL_Jannie 2021-06-28
Yes, I want to unironically identify as an attack helicopter
26 aqouta 2021-06-28
You haven't even come close to the true drama level available here. Age is just an arbitrary number, you can identify as whichever age you want...
8 Kissingersbitch 2021-06-28
-19 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-06-28
There's no evolutionary reason to expect a neural mechanism that makes people act according to their race (whatever that might mean). There's a very good reason to expect a mechanism that makes people act and otherwise present in a way attractive to members of the opposite sex, same as the mechanism that makes people attracted to the opposite sex. In fact it's weird to believe that gays are real but tslurs are not when it's two sides of the same coin.
46 1998Sublime 2021-06-28
It's always about sex with you people. If it can't revolve around your dick you don't care
-8 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-06-28
Procreation my dude, in a missionary position through a hole in the bedsheet, like Darwin intended. But yeah, correctly putting the dick into a vagina (and vice versa) is the single most important thing optimized for by evolution, so you should expect most people to be heterosexual and cisgender, and also expect that since the brain and genitalia are different organs, sometimes they don't match.
27 Bowawawa 2021-06-28
No dramautist can procreate mate
12 jubbergun 2021-06-28
Untrue, I have spawned an heir, and if I hadn't steered him away from the deviancy of the internet he'd probably be an epic shit-poster by now.
14 roaming_bartender 2021-06-28
Imagine putting your dick in gussy 🤢🤢🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
12 jubbergun 2021-06-28
Some of us have no standards and can't be shamed.
30 ffbtaw2 2021-06-28
This is truscum/transmedicalist bullshit, you don't need gender dysphoria to be transgender and you don't need racial dysphoria to be transracial. Also gay people aren't real.
17 languidhorse 2021-06-28
I'm confused, is this supposed to explain dysphoria?
-5 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-06-28
It's supposed to explain the general desire to be an attractive person of a particular gender (which may or may not match your genitalia), I guess when this desire is frustrated you can get dysphoria.
Though as a matter of fact this theory doesn't directly predict the body dysmorphia aspect of gender dysphoria, since cisgender people don't have control over their genitals anyway so it's evolutionarily pointless to have any psychological drives related to them. But brains are weird so who knows.
23 languidhorse 2021-06-28
You're like those AIs that generate syntactically correct text but with no semantic meaning.
When a man is too ugly to be a man he wants to become a woman? ??
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-06-28
No, when a person is born with male genitalia but female-identifying brain, they want to present as an attractive female.
What gender they "really" are is a matter of convention and compromise, since gender is a category and categories don't exist in nature.
Why are you people so upset at simple explanations? Was that what got you expelled from 109 subreddits?
13 chilifuckaronipizza 2021-06-28
Bringing “ladybrains” back to own the cons. You love to see it folks.
3 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-06-28
I try to have my beliefs aligned with what is true, not with what is politically convenient.
1 DubiousDisclaimer 2021-06-28
To truly own the cons, one must first become the con.
And then whine like a little bitch whenever anybody points out the contradiction.
7 languidhorse 2021-06-28
You could've said this two comments ago the earlier ones really make no sense. And the point of the tweet is that now you dont have to have a "female identifying brain" to be train, you dont have to have dysphoria. So its really no different from claiming you're a different race. Also the brain theory isnt established science. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-03/rfuo-msr032521.php ^ "true, not what is politically convenient"
3 [deleted] 2021-06-28
[removed]
4 Nouveau_Compte 2021-06-28
There's very little difference between the brains of cis men and transwomen. There's a lot of difference between the brains of straight males and gay males.
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-06-28
Who were you trying to swindle, kiddo?
3 Nouveau_Compte 2021-06-28
This means homosexual males and homosexual females seem to have the same brain, retard.
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-06-28
Huh, that's interesting. Heterosexual males and females are very different though. Idk if looking at these differences solely due to the virtue of their existence is meaningful, especially when in some very different cases the procedure reveals no differences, but pretty interesting nevertheless.
I'm not sure what it has to do with the present discussion though.
1 Nouveau_Compte 2021-06-28
It answers your point:
Basically, there are 3 brain categories:
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-06-28
First of all, they were able to distinguish cis and transgenders.
Second, that's not "brain categories" and definitely not brain categories corresponding to gender. They looked at one particular property that happens to be statistically different between straight men and women, but is very similar in homosexuals of either sex. Which is interesting but definitely doesn't let us to talk like we've discovered what male and female brains are. Because last I checked a lot of gay guys were definitely very male.
3 ManStusial 2021-06-28
Too long, didn't read.
2 GeauxHouston22 2021-06-28
Too many words
1 [deleted] 2021-06-28
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2021-06-28
Your comment has been removed because it contained a bad word. The word was
trans. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep /r/drama safe.I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
4 DubiousDisclaimer 2021-06-28
Both the hard science and basic reasoning skills support the idea that it's not possible to have an authentically "female-identifying brain" in the absence of a female body.
And if you cite Zhou et alia, I swear to God I will pay somebody to make a snuff film out of sheer spite.
3 knohknoh911 2021-06-28
Female brains is an oxymoron lmao
2 DubiousDisclaimer 2021-06-28
How does "I was cursed with a terminal case of f*idbrain at conception" raise fewer questions than "you have a sexed body, and your reactions to your sexed body, whether positive or negative, affect your brain"?
Umm...are you sure about that?
0 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-06-28
My favorite part is not that you wrote three replies to me, it's that you wrote two, seethed for more than an hour, then couldn't help yourself and wrote this one. You are mad, terf!
This should apply to homosexuality too. My point is that being successful at reproduction means that you have to a) be attracted to the traits of the opposite sex, and b) demonstrate traits attractive to the opposite sex. A male nightingale should sing and should not seek singing nightingales. A female nightingale should not sing herself (because that would attract no males) and should seek singing nightingales.
Humans have it even worse than nightingales because a good half of our gender presentation is culturally determined, like dress, hairstyle, makeup, behavior to an extent. So our genes don't just construct a brain that sings like a male nightingale or presents its cloaca like a singer's groupie, but has to learn stereotypically male and female culturally determined traits.
Ask your token male friend (if you have that) what exactly are his thoughts about showing up to the prom night dressed in a sundress. Whatever he says is going to go along the lines "girls will see me as a freak and not sleep with me, forever". Not dressing yourself in a sundress is an important part of cismale psyche because of the reproductive consequences.
Baby-terfs* like you hold a nonsensical position where one side of the equation "get attracted to, be attractive to", is considered to be largely immutable "yeah we lesbians were born this way", while the other is entirely socially determined. No, you can't make arguments against the existence of trains people without also showing how they don't deny the existence of lesbians. If you feel very strongly about the prospect of sucking a girldick, and you're pretty sure that it isn't a mere preference created by social conditioning, then you can't just deny the existence of strong opinions about own girldick in the trainswomen's heads.
[*]: trve oldskvl terfs deny the existence of lesbians. They are wrong but at least consistent. You are both wrong and inconsistent.
This might surprise you, but we could be living in the world where there are totally true "wrong-gendered brain" trainspeople AND some autogynephilic horny moids AND some young foids attracted to popularity like moths to a flame, on account of their "vagina brains" (your words, not mine). I totally agree with you that the immense growth of FtM kids seems to be a fad and pretty harmful (though you made this your bed, I have little sympathy about you having to lie in it) but disagree with your belief that genuine trainssexuality doesn't exist.
I meant the antisemitic MDEfugees but terfs fit that trope too, sure.
Correct me if some of your arguments fell through the cracks between the three seething comments I had to reply to.
2 DubiousDisclaimer 2021-06-28
I'll leave it to an impartial outside observer to judge, but it appears to me that the seething and coping isn't coming from my end.
I remember reading a paper about how homo habilis took drastic measures to avoid sundresses.
Never said that. I have no problems with the genuine possibility that the development of sexual orientation has a strong experiential component.
I haven't, but I can.
I'm not denying the existence of an obsession among trains with their girldicks. I'm denying that it's the result of ladybrain, dipshit.
Somehow I'm getting the sense that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Name a terf who denies the existence of lesbians.
I have no idea how I am responsible for the explosion of trains-identified females, so you'll have to spell that one out for me.
It's not that I believe that people of gender don't exist. I just don't believe that it's caused by having a "female brain" in a male body, because that's fucking cartoon physics nonsense, and the science backs me up here.
Better go clean your room, bucko.
0 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-06-28
You reported one of my comments above to the Anti-Evil Operations and the poor confused pajeets deleted it! If that's not seething I don't know what is. I on the other hand have nothing to cope with actually.
Have you tried reading the paragraph immediately preceding the quote?
Like, you were taught that it's unterflike to suck a dick by your terf mom or something?
I mean, people are different and everything, but as a superstraight male I'm pretty sure that I have an instinctive revulsion to the idea of kissing another male or sucking his dick, or a girldick for that matter. Your theory about development of gender doesn't match my experience at all. Plus there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer for example.
(note btw that of course it's possible to fuck people up in various ways, that doesn't say anything about the natural development. Just because a malnourished kid will grow into a manlet doesn't disprove a strong genetic determinant of height in healthy people)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_lesbianism has a list.
Ideas have consequences, sweaty. First you needed to fight the "women belong in the kitchen" idea and you invented the "gender is a social construct" mantra, flat out denying any possibility of biological basis for psychological differences, so no such thing as "ladybrains". But like a genie, the idea just wouldn't stay in its terfy box that basically reduced the essence of a woman to having a front hole, the denial of reality based on pure ideology attracted various postmodernists who proclaimed that if gender isn't real then anyone can be any gender they want, even an attack helicopter! So there you have it.
Do you seriously believe that humans are the only animal on the planet who have their gender expression entirely socially constructed? Or are you railing against a caricature that you created yourself?
2 DubiousDisclaimer 2021-06-28
I don't know who did that, but it wasn't me.
I'm not going to be trapped into defending my rhetoric as though I had made a serious attempt at a rational argument.
You're saying that you have a personal aversion to sucking dick, and therefore that aversion must be genetic. There are large gaps in your reasoning.
Also, I haven't given you my "theory of gender development", so I don't know how it could possibly match your experience.
I just wanted to highlight this.
Look, you've somehow got it into your head, or at least you are expressing the idea that there are two options: genetic determinism and pure social construction.
You're of a genetic determinist bent (yes, yes, I know you don't actually think it's that simple) and you are casting me in a hardline social constructionist position without my participation simply because I disagree with your fairly rigid genetic determinism.
There are entire fields of study--epigenetics, human behavioral biology, and human developmental biology--that focus on the many, many layers in between "it's all in the genes" and "we're just conditioned to do it like that".
All I have to do in order to disbelieve in ladybrain (or, more specifically, the idea that a ladybrain can spontaneously form in a phenotypically normal male body) is be slightly more educated on those intermediary topics than you.
And I'm sorry for implying that you were a Jordan Peterson fan. That was out of line.
1 [deleted] 2021-06-28
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2021-06-28
Your comment has been removed because it contained a bad word. The word was
trans. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep /r/drama safe.I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 [deleted] 2021-06-28
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2021-06-28
Your comment has been removed because it contained a bad word. The word was
trans. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep /r/drama safe.I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-06-28
Lolwhat? My objection was not to the form but to the contents of the argument--which, yes, is a valid rational argument, even though wrong--which contents I actually addressed right before.
I'm presenting it as evidence that needs explaining. It would be especially in need of explaining if you had a similar aversion to girldick and had to turn your abstract statements about how gender is formed into a factual account of how you personally ended up with that aversion.
There's other evidence, for example the already mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer, in which case you should explain how your theory of gender produced by genitalia and socialization explains why the guy eventually detrainsitioned despite having no male genitalia or socialization since infancy.
Words can have wider or narrower meanings. If you define a lesbian as a woman who more or less exclusively has sex with women, then of course political lesbians are lesbians. However a narrower definition is usually used, where a lesbian is a woman who is more or less exclusively sexually attracted to women. Political lesbians obviously are not lesbian in this sense because they choose to only have sex with women not because of their sexual preferences but because they are bisexuals who hate men and trainswomen. Those of them who advocate for political lesbianism for all women believe that heterosexual women (and by extension lesbians) don't exist.
Now, it is possible that I was wrong and you're actually one of those, in which case it's understandable why you deny that you don't suck girldick simply because you hate trainswomen, but it would be nice if you didn't waste my time with dissembling arguments.
Otherwise you should admit that yes, those people exist, believe what they believe, and that your own position appears to be an inconsistent partial copy of theirs.
No, you're not taking an intermediary position. An intermediary position by definition admits that there is some physiological contribution to gender identification, that to some extent we are like nightingales who just sing instinctively, without the society teaching them nor developing an urge to sing as a result of looking at their own genitals for a prolonged period of time. And since as I said the brain and the genitals are separate organs it is possible to get a mismatch. You take a hardline position fundamentally denying that possibility, pointing at layers between genes and gender expression doesn't change anything.
In fact my position requires me to enthusiastically acknowledge the existence of those layers and the complicated way genotype interacts with environment to produce phenotype, because after all trains people have the mismatched genotype! I'm also open to the ideas of "cis by default" and "hetero by default", that a lot of people don't have strong feelings about their gender or sexual attraction and just go along with what society tells them, and I'm pretty sure that a significant number of homosexuals do "reproduce by raping kids" as Snappy puts it. But on the other hand I'm also pretty sure that a lot of people are "born this way", and sometimes it doesn't match their genitals.
By the way, just to be sure, you aren't arguing against a much more expansive idea of "ladybrain" than what I'm talking about, that does in fact involve proclivities for sandwich making etc, besides basic gender identity?
2 DubiousDisclaimer 2021-06-28
I have literally never denied that there was a physiological component.
Your position assumes that the brain maps the genitals in anticipation of their existence, i.e. the brain is set up to "expect" a certain type of genitals.
Not only is there zero empirical evidence of such a mechanism, but this runs counter to the present underpinnings of our understanding of neurophysiological development.
Consider a situation in which you are born with a deformed, underdeveloped arm. Does the brain develop its proprioceptive model of the arm in advance, according to some platonic ideal model of an arm, stored somewhere in the genes?
No. It does not. It works with the arm that actually develops. It maps it in space after the malformed limb has appeared, and not in anticipation of its existence.
According to your model, it should be the norm that people with bodies that are morphologically irregular experience a kind of dysphoria in which they perceive a disparity between those irregularities and that platonic ideal which is inscribed in their genes.
This is not the norm. Dysphoria of this kind is not present in the vast majority of cases. The sensation of phantom limbs, phantom pain, etc all refer to a network of nerves which at one point actually existed, but does not currently exist. It was given the time to make its presence known to the brain, to make its impression felt, and then it was taken away.
The reverse--the sensation of something which is not there and which has never been there to make an impression upon the nervous system, which has never had the opportunity to develop a relationship with the brain, is a categorically different phenomenon. It does have correlations with specific single nucleotide polymorphisms and polygentic aggregates, but those genetic variants are associated with things that are generally agreed to be pathological in nature and which originate in the brain (dysphoria, schizophrenia, psychosis, etc)
Unless you define "gender identity" as "having a relationship with your body", I am rejecting the notion that "gender identity" describes anything coherent whatsoever for more than 99% of the population. I do not have a "gender identity", and I believe this to be true of everyone who does not experience intense dysphoria.
David Reimer has his genitals mutilated in an ill-conceived attempt to correct the psychological impact of an earlier mutilation of his genitals. He did not consent to tr@nsition, and he cannot therefore be said to have meaningfully "detr@nsitioned".
He didn't "tr@nsition" or "detr@nsition" due to a mismatch between his brain's expectations about what his genitals ought to be and what they actually were.
He committed suicide after a lifetime of systematic institutional abuse.
And, FYI, many "political lesbians" are celibate in practice.
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-06-28
95% of the population behaves in a gendered way in order to attract mates. That is their gender identity. If you look at it this way there's nothing mysterious or circular about the gotcha question "what does it mean to identify as a woman, besides identifying as a woman?": you have a straight female gender identity if you want to present yourself in a way that makes straight males horny and lusting after you. About half of that is culture-dependent of course, but this is fine for the theory and you conceded your objection.
Ah, I see a major point of misunderstanding. My position doesn't concern itself with mapping of genitals whatsoever, I clearly stated that it doesn't in fact provide a direct explanation of the body dysmorphia aspect of gender dysphoria.
What I'm concerned about is how the brain figures out that you have to have long hair, wear frilly dresses and fancy hats, have an hourglass figure, speak in a high voice, act flirty in a particular way, and so on, and so forth. And, similarly, how does it figure that you have to be attracted to humans who do those things and not attracted to humans who do the opposite things.
There's no "limb" that the brain can imprint on here, this behavior doesn't even begin to be exhibited in earnest before puberty, and it's much, much more reasonable to assume that the relevant neuronal circuitry is formed in utero in response to say testosterone level* than as a result of looking at your own genitals now and then during childhood. And so if something goes wrong with that, if you're at the wrong t-level at the expected beginning of some chemical cascade, you get the mismatched brain circuit.
So if that's true then I'd expect the dissatisfaction with one's genitals to be strictly downstream of the desire to perform the preferred gender role. It's like you went 90% of the way to be an attractive woman but that damned dangly thing is still a dealbreaker for most guys.
He detransitioned by presenting as male in all respects besides his genitals. The mismatch was not between his brain and his genitals (sorry for phrasing it like that before, I though that it was an acceptable simplification), it was between his brain and his presented gender, of which the genitals were a small part.
[*]: regarding in utero testosterone, here's one of my most favorite graphs: https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/105820/fpsyg-05-01011-HTML/image_m/fpsyg-05-01011-g001.jpg which compares the digit ratios of normal women, normal men, and feminist conference attendees. The whole article is fun to read, this is as close as Science ever got to declaring that radfems claiming that women are not psychologically different from men are totally right about that, but only regarding themselves.
5 SandorClegane_AMA 2021-06-28
But acting according to the norms / stereotypes of your race is a social construct. Why can't it differ from their birth race?
2 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-06-28
I don't think that this is a thing outside of rslurred racist SJW imagination motivated by sour grapes reasoning.
3 DubiousDisclaimer 2021-06-28
Like sexual arousal and neural pathways built by a feedback loop established over a period of many, many years between the brain and the genitals one actually possesses?
What's more likely: that an increasing number of young women are being tricked by an amoral medical-industrial complex and a corrupt and decadent culture into thinking that people will take them more seriously if they pay big money to get their tits cut off and take testosterone for the rest of their lives, and that their little online echo chambers enable them to convince themselves that they're "becoming their true selves" in doing so, or that these women have accidentally had a "penis brain" implanted in place of a "vagina brain"?
Hint: that first sentence goes a long way in explaining heterosexuality, homosexuality, and people of gender.
Cults can get people to sincerely believe some crazy shit.
128 Ani_Infijar 2021-06-28
“yOu CaNt JuSt ChOoSe To Be KoReAn”
Calm down swetty 💅🏻💅🏻
84 Terrible_Ad7528 2021-06-28
Ben Shapiro my sassy hero
He dunks on L-slurs with verbal judo
34 busslordlowkeybussin 2021-06-28
Surprised the Palestinians haven't called themselves T-jews. It might actually work.
14 johannesalthusius 2021-06-28
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transjordan_(region)
1 [deleted] 2021-06-28
[removed]
66 fernguts 2021-06-28
We're always telling people to "do better", so why shouldn't we celebrate someone who wants to de-Bong themself?
59 Iowa_Hawkeye 2021-06-28
Is this person mentally ill or is he taking right wing trolling to new heights?
101 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-06-28
Apparently he spent $100k on plastic surgery which is a bit too much for trolling I think.
48 Iowa_Hawkeye 2021-06-28
I suppose, think the line can be drawn at buttplug in ass live on camera.
37 tejanx 2021-06-28
I’m more surprised he found a medical professional willing to go along with it. But I guess a lot of the plastic surgery guys are just in it for the money, so
32 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-06-28
That's nothing really compared to Bogdanoffs or that cat lady.
15 quitsocmedia 2021-06-28
Race transition cosmetics are fairly common in most countries, though generally aiming for a white aesthetic. As far as plastic surgery goes, this is far from the least moral thing approved.
1 [deleted] 2021-06-28
[removed]
7 Supreme-Shitposter 2021-06-28
You just lack commitment and discipline
67 SnappyIsMyWaifu 2021-06-28
Either mentally ill, or trolling and also mentally ill.
No amount of "owning the libs" would make this a sane thing to do.
5 jubbergun 2021-06-28
As if there are sane barriers to the limits to which one should go to won the libs/cons.
5 Kissingersbitch 2021-06-28
Yikes sweaty. No hate speech is allowed on this sub 💅🏽
17 LongTallSally17 2021-06-28
Hmmm….mentally ill? No no…trolling?
Wow this game is fun!
9 lolcows65 2021-06-28
He has the mental disorder of being a K-Pop fan.
4 CunnnOnMyBunnn 2021-06-28
Ben Shapiro? yes.
2 Pomodorodorodoro 2021-06-28
If he wants to take anything to new heights, he'll need a step ladder.
2 jubbergun 2021-06-28
The two are not mutually exclusive.
43 MrPiction 2021-06-28
The irony of every comment is truly good enough for me to jerk off to. Excuse me.
42 goodbehaviorsam 2021-06-28
The real question is whether a Korean ultranationalist or a Korean Christian fundamentalist will stab him first.
31 busslordlowkeybussin 2021-06-28
Please be a North Korean defector for maximum drama🙏🙏
I would love to hear King Jong Un's thoughts on the People of T.
12 jubbergun 2021-06-28
Kim Jung Un's Philosophy Regarding People of Railways:
If they bring him cake: Good
If they don't bring him cake: Bad
Considering he was hanging with Dennis Rodman something tells me dude might embrace anything transitional.
14 busslordlowkeybussin 2021-06-28
Kim is truly one of the worlds biggest flexers. Imagine dunking on 25 million people daily just by eating food.
1 jubbergun 2021-06-28
The people of North Korea are actually well fed and it's capitalist propaganda that they are starving while Kim stuffs his fat face with decadent treats. If it were true that was happening then it wouldn't be true communism.
8 azuredota 2021-06-28
“What?”
-Kim Jong Un
40 [deleted] 2021-06-28
[deleted]
9 johannesalthusius 2021-06-28
our society has really stooped low if Mr. Shapiro can reach it
37 [deleted] 2021-06-28
[deleted]
14 vrzv 2021-06-28
Just what I was about to say 👏
1 CunnnOnMyBunnn 2021-06-28
basado
23 Alicesnakebae 2021-06-28
When is ben getting his fat titties
18 busslordlowkeybussin 2021-06-28
Ben Shapiro 100% sneaked some of his wife's breast milk after they had their kid.
5 East_Onion 2021-06-28
He doesn't need to, he can get high on his own supply
1 offshoreredditaccnt 2021-06-28
You mean sister’s
1 [deleted] 2021-06-28
[deleted]
22 GeminiRocket 2021-06-28
But you're the crazy one sweetie, I will remind you the facts over your feelings 😎
6 offshoreredditaccnt 2021-06-28
Circumcision and transition are basically the same thing
16 tiptopkitkat 2021-06-28
Oli London, is a bigger fool if he thinks Ben is supporting him.
12 [deleted] 2021-06-28
[deleted]
2 1998Sublime 2021-06-28
Almost as if... Hmmm nevermind it slipped the tongue
11 Supreme-Shitposter 2021-06-28
He sucks at debating but he's great at shitposting
6 jubbergun 2021-06-28
The manlet has clearly evolved.
4 onafriday 2021-06-28
benny bag of bagels
1 [deleted] 2021-06-28
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2021-06-28
Your comment has been removed because it contained a bad word. The word was
trans. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep /r/drama safe.I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 [deleted] 2021-06-28
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2021-06-28
Your comment has been removed because it contained a bad word. The word was
trans. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep /r/drama safe.I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 [deleted] 2021-06-28
[removed]
1 YourGreatDarshFace 2021-06-28
Is this genuine, or are they just doing it as a Korea move?
1 whenweriiide 2021-06-28
ben shapiro really is channeling lessons from mr. cartmenez
1 dallassucks976 2021-06-28
This is what he should be doing all day everyday.