Law More C-16 INSANITY: 14 BC women facing human rights complaints for refusing to wax balls

When you make treat perversion as if it were normal, what is normal will become considered perverted.
tbf, is there anything normal about using hotwax to forcibly remove hair from your genitals?
 
tbf, is there anything normal about using hotwax to forcibly remove hair from your genitals?
tenor.gif
 
If you were born with testicles you were born Male, are Male, and will forever be Male. It's impossible to be a woman that was born with testicles.


Even a child knows this.

I've said it before, a man can put on lipstick, chop off his cock, bolt on a pair of tits, etc- and he will still be a man. Bruce Jenner is a man and he should be referred to as such.

No matter how badly a man manipulates himself, he'll never be a woman. Calling theses freaks "women" is insulting to women and I hope they start to fight back.
 
If you were born with testicles you were born Male, are Male, and will forever be Male. It's impossible to be a woman that was born with testicles.
This equivocation fallacy is a common rhetorical tactic in the anti-trans debate.
When talking about gender, people put context into consideration. In a biological context, someone born with testicles is male, but when you are talking to a stranger you think is male, do you ask them to drop-trou or provide a long form birth certificate before referring to them with male pronouns?
 
This equivocation fallacy is a common rhetorical tactic in the anti-trans debate.
When talking about gender, people put context into consideration. In a biological context, someone born with testicles is male, but when you are talking to a stranger you think is male, do you ask them to drop-trou or provide a long form birth certificate before referring to them with male pronouns?

If someone looks and talks like a male, I assume they're a male. And 99% of the time, it's easy to tell. What point are you trying to make?
 
If someone looks and talks like a male, I assume they're a male. And 99% of the time, it's easy to tell. What point are you trying to make?
The point is that in certain contexts, you determine if someone's gender based on their appearance, not on confirmation of their genitals. Saying "they are male if they are born with testicles" is only a useful definition in some contexts, but misleading in others.
 
The point is that in certain contexts, you determine if someone's gender based on their appearance, not on confirmation of their genitals. Saying "they are male if they are born with testicles" is only a useful definition in some contexts, but misleading in others.
No, if one defines male as being born with testicles, it does not mean they need to inspect every person's genitals to see if they are male or female. The way they dress and present themselves externally is an easier method and correct much of the time. And any mistake made would not render the base definition of sex according to genitals logically fallacious as you claimed.
 
The point is that in certain contexts, you determine if someone's gender based on their appearance, not on confirmation of their genitals. Saying "they are male if they are born with testicles" is only a useful definition in some contexts, but misleading in others.

If I call some man who has had his balls chopped off, has had breast implants, and has had his Adam's apple removed by a female pronoun, that's simply a mistake on my part. The person is still 100% male.
 
No, if one defines male as being born with testicles, it does not mean they need to inspect every person's genitals to see if they are male or female. The way they dress and present themselves externally is an easier method and correct much of the time. And any mistake made would not render the base definition of sex according to genitals logically fallacious as you claimed.
I didn't say it was logically fallacious, I said it was a fallacy used as a rhetorical tactic. The fallacy is that using a biological definition of a gender is not appropriate in all non-biological contexts. If someone presents themselves as male in a social context, it's probably because they want you to treat them as a male per the context of the situation, regardless of their biological gender.
 
If I call some man who has had his balls chopped off, has had breast implants, and has had his Adam's apple removed by a female pronoun, that's simply a mistake on my part. The person is still 100% male.
If that person preferred that you referred to them with female pronouns, would you oblige?
 
There are only two genders, determined by biological sex. There are the extreme rare cases of a person being born a hermophdite, and those are the only circumstances where the person may choose. Everything else is mental illness.
 
Not really. That doesn't mean we should intentionally mis-call men by female pronouns.
Why not? If someone (makes an effort to) appear female, and would prefer to be addressed with female pronouns, and it doesn’t matter to me, why should it matter if I oblige? We both know she isn’t biologically female, but in the context of a social setting, it doesn’t matter one way or another.
 
O boy.....I mean sure I shave em for my lady, but what kind of man (in denial or not) waxes their balls? That comes across as possibly one of the most painful experiences a man can undertake

That's what makes it so manly

I listen to this while I wax my own balls
 
Why not? If someone (makes an effort to) appear female, and would prefer to be addressed with female pronouns, and it doesn’t matter to me, why should it matter if I oblige? We both know she isn’t biologically female, but in the context of a social setting, it doesn’t matter one way or another.

Because he's not female. Truth matters.
 
Back
Top