Alright, we’re back. What sort of conspiratorial bullshit do you have now? Or did you come to realize you’re full of shit?

No, it isn’t a non sequitur. It’s an example that directly proves your interpretation of Similar_Reading’s comment. It very obviously and objectively was not aimed at all men, and does not invalidate their views *because they are men*. QED

No friend, it is *you* who are hung up on the issue on transgenderism. Also, I’ve been very explicit about calling it a “women” supremacy movement as to not bring any trans subject matter into the conversation. As I’ve said before, you thinking that feminism is a women-supremacy movement puts you in agreement with terfs. It doesn’t mean you agree with them on everything, and it does nothing to speak to your position on transgenderism. This was a disappointing comment to type, because it’s just a restatement of the last.

> You just contradicted yourself. The presumption is that rejecting transgenderism is automatically invalid and therefore either the person rejecting that set of claims is either "hateful" or "ignorant". This excuses treating them with incredible bad faith. The same is true of modern feminism at large and men rejecting it. Firstly, I fully reject your assessment of the premise. At no point does “rejecting transgenderism” enter into the realm of the men’s view. Only when it crosses into the belief of “feminism is a women supremacy movement” do you now have association with “rejecting transgenderism” by way of being ideologically associate with terfs. That does not mean that men who think feminism is a women-supremacy movement necessarily reject transgenderism. > Except that the "men" you're referring to might not agree with Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists on the topic of feminism, and in fact a lot of them don't. The original post had NOTHING to do with transgenderism. It's Similar_reading who added transgenderism to the conversation for no reason. Except they *do* agree with terfs when it comes to feminism being a women supremacy movement, which was specifically the topic at hand.

I wonder, do you still hold to your claim that this was a transgender woman? And how do you feel about female authors using male pen names?

This person is not, and was not, trans. They cannot *know* something that is not true.

But definitely *not* a man, and definitely *not* transgender. Can we entertain all untrue hypotheticals please? What if she could fly? What if she was Jeff Bezos’ dominatrix?

> It couldn't possibly be that someone understands it fully and still rejects it for valid reasons Of course it could. And that possibility is fully allowed in Similar_Reading’s comment. Needless to say, even if your point were true, that doesn’t equate to disqualifying men simply because they are men. It equates to disqualifying men and women simply because they believe feminism has become a women-supremacy movement. Stifling of ideas, sure. Sexist, no. > Critiquing your position or anyone else's isn't taking personal offense. Your critique falls flat. Oh, terribly sorry. You’re just defending men that share views with terfs for the principle. I agree that does not make you one personally, and withdraw my observation.

Do you know how I *know* that comment wasn’t aimed at all men? Because I, a man, do not believe the farce that says feminism is (or has become) a women-supremacy movement. See: telling on yourself.

Wow, wrong on all counts. I did not read Similar_Reading’s take as applying to all men. Rather, it applied to men whose views are shared with trans exclusionary radical feminists. So all this talk of dismissing men’s views simply because they *are* men must be addressed to someone else. That isn’t what I believe, and I do not believe that is what was expressed by Similar_Reading. You, by taking personal offense from a comment aimed at a certain subset of people, admit to belonging to that group. If you think the comment applies to all men, that’s quite an inference but all we can do is disagree.

> After scrolling through TikTok Fuck outta here with that bullshit.

> I mean, when one of the most famous examples of modern feminism is the "Video Games Appeal to the Male Fantasy" meme and most modern so-called "feminists" believe that kind of thing, then yes, I do believe they are not being fair or equalist about things. I think I know why you got banned. > When was the last time you heard a story of a modern feminist, particularly the ones with a bunch of clout on TikTok, actively take a stand against the unfairness of the custodial system of courts? I am now reasonably confident that I know why you got banned. > Why is it that most feminists don't push the cruel narrative that the male suicide rate is FAR higher than female suicide rates and try to do more about it? Fuck, I am 100% certain I know why you got banned. > It's because they don't care. 😂😂😂

Weird how I, as a man, didn’t read it that way at all. Stop telling on yourself.

I mean I didn’t report you for anything, but “your logic” is one unhinged redditor making a fool of themself. It’s certainly not a compelling point.

To each their own, I guess. If by “that movement” you mean the mods over at r/lgbt, sure I can see that. If you mean the same movement that spawned from the Stonewall riots, I can’t see how a troll getting banned on Reddit is related.

Given that OP plainly admits he’s doing this for fun, I think he got banned for being a troll. That’s leaving aside that that particular acronym isn’t the “correct” term, which makes it a pretty *obvious* troll.

I don’t understand why everyone is freaking out that OP got banned for trolling?

I’m nearly positive you meant pedophiles, and no, Reddit doesn’t consider them a protected class. They do forbid the advocation of violence or harm on someone though, even pedophiles. That’s not to say you didn’t run up on some power tripping mod. I got banned from a circlejerk sub for trolling - can’t even make that shit up. But that’s not even *close* to what I was talking about in my original reply. The idea that this was a trans shooter and it’s being suppressed by the media is the highest order of idiocy. Or this made up idea that there have been uncounted, secret mass shootings by trans people over the past 30 days. Pure drooling moron status. Or that you’re a homophobe just because you have convinced yourself that this unsubstantiated, unverifiable fable is true. Optimistically, that’s indicative of mental illness.

Yes, you have opinions on how others feel about you and why. You’re not them, and it’s just your perception of the situation. And your opinions and perceptions are totally valid, let’s not forget that. But they’re not objective. Surely you can see that. Now if you were to just say, “they hate me because I go against their ideologies”, then…of course? Conservatives hate me for the same reason. But, while I’ve had *plenty* call me “race traitor” and other madness, I don’t claim that’s why conservatives hate me.

So long as you realize that’s all yours is as well.

Can verify with 100% accuracy that this is not why leftists hate you.

Trust me, guy, you don’t align with 80% of anybody. This has got to be one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read.

More like to laugh at it? Why would I feel sympathetic towards someone’s learned hate? I see now that I mistyped my previous comment - I couldn’t be hated more by *conservatives*. I’ve been called “rave traitor” more times than I care to count.

That definitely isn’t the definition of transgender, but that’s neither here nor there. The person did not regularly identify as both a man and a woman. They used a male alias, which isn’t nearly the same thing. Are female writers using male pen names all transgender?

I’d say if you see “uses male and female aliases” and jump to “trans”, “making it up” is exactly what you’re doing.

I mean she dead for sure, but a dead woman. Not a dead man.

What of this has been swept under the rug though? These are all known facts (“probably” aside lol).

But that’s the Nashville shooting. I’m talking about this shooting. You can’t point to *this* shooting as an example of a compelling point and then not explain how it fits your narrative.

What story was swept out of the headlines though? That she’s a woman?

Which is wild, given how wrong he is.

This is objectively false, mind you. I’m far left, and disagree plenty with left wingers in America. Who’s going to cancel me?

Growing up in the Deep South, I literally *couldn’t* be hated more by liberals. There’s no hate quite like Christian love.

She’s a woman, not a man.

5/7

That pretty explicitly says she’s a woman.

Now that I have heard. Gotta wonder where these geniuses get their news.

Was she a male? I haven’t heard anything about that.

What facts of the matter are there? I haven’t read anything that said she was a man.

I mean I get that you’re trying to be like the biggest ree blue hair, but the only people I’ve ever met who come even close to that level is butthurt conservatives. And look at your profile - it’s a butthurt conservative 😂

I don’t think so? It seems like they’re using it now. It says it right there in the URL.

But also, that link says what I said? Back to saying the same thing again, and you not knowing it lol

Under the LGBTQ folder 😂

> Below is an introductory list of LGBTQ terms and definitions. This list does not encompass the wide range of identities and terms that are used within LGBTQ communities and/or spaces.

Yeah, LGBTQ like they say in the header.

Weird how they use LGBTQ right there in the header.

> This list does not encompass the wide range of identities and terms that are used within LGBTQ communities and/or spaces.

Right, #2. We’re saying the same thing, you just don’t understand how.

Bruh. The acronym is not LGBTQQ2IPSAA. Banning people for using the correct, long-ass acronym, LGBTQIA+, never happened. Banning people for trolling happens literally all the time. I got banned from a circlejerk sub for trolling, if you can believe that. Mod came back later and said they were being too sensitive lol. People think something is real and it isn’t. That’s #2 homie.

That, like, your opinion man. “Alphabet rejects banning people for shit like this” didn’t happen. It’s fake. Ragebait. So people who *know* [something untrue] are definitively people who don’t know it’s fake. If you’re saying they’re doing it for some reason other than to justify their hatred of LGBT people, I have literally no feelings on the matter lol.

Yes, I do think that.

I think that’s pretty firmly covered by #2 lol

I think there’s three kinds of people in this thread - People who knows it’s fake and use it to fan the flames of hatred towards LGBT people - People who don’t know it’s fake, but will use anything and everything (even the most dumb, unbelievable shit like this) to justify their hatred. - People who knows it’s fake and don’t have irrational hatred for gay people.