- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1453 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
475 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 15041
>Drag queens banned from performing at Free Pride Glasgow event over fears acts will offend trans people
>The organisation said in a statement that it hopes to create a safe space for all members of the LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex, asexual) community, and that while the decision may "disappoint" some people "the needs of the most marginalised groups within our community come first."
>Free Pride Glasgow said: “It was felt that it [drag performance] would make some of those who were transgender or questioning their gender uncomfortable. It was felt by the group within the Trans/Non Binary Caucus that some drag performance, particularly cis drag, hinges on the social view of gender and making it into a joke, however transgender individuals do not feel as though their gender identity is a joke.”
Life rarely takes the piss out of itself like this. It almost sounds like the plot of a South Park episode.
|>>|| No. 18848
>Also we're the only species that can voluntarily become infertile
I bet there are loads of animals that can bite their own nuts off if they put their mind to it.
|>>|| No. 18849
>Not to mention 'someone I can procreate with' is a silly line to draw for attractiveness - would you feel disgust if you got off with a woman and then found out she'd had a hysterectomy
Yes. It seriously undermined a relationship when it turned out my ex was infertile. I wasn't disgusted with her, because I didn't consider there to be a deception on her part, but it definitely affected my attraction towards her. When your needs stretch further than immediate gratification these things affect you.
>don't forget the ancient greeks used to love it up
And who exactly did they love it up with? Are you sure you want to make that argument they have registers for people who do that kind of thing now.
|>>|| No. 18850
>It's more that apparently you can find someone incredibly attractive right up until you find out they have different bits. It seems odd to me, attractiveness is attractiveness.
It's really quite simple.
I like a nice face, tits, good arse, and vagina.
After a few pints the first three can perhaps be overlooked, but I don't find cocks attracive so the last one is always an absolute dealbreaker.
I'm amazed you can't understand this.
|>>|| No. 18851
>I'm amazed you can't understand this.
Did you miss the part of my post where I asked a question which addressed this, or did you just ignore it out of convenience?
If you like fannies, how do you feel about post op trannies?
|>>|| No. 18852
>When your needs stretch further than immediate gratification these things affect you.
Typical breeder. Stop having kids, we don't need nearly as many as we have, you're killing the planet. Suck a cock, save a tree.
|>>|| No. 18853
>Did you miss the part of my post where I asked a question which addressed this, or did you just ignore it out of convenience?
It was scrolling past on /*/ so I only saw the last five posts in the thread. I didn't fancy reading the previous 400 odd ones.
Still doesn't make your statement any less silly.
>If you like fannies, how do you feel about post op trannies?
|>>|| No. 18854
>It was scrolling past on /*/ so I only saw the last five posts in the thread
Eh? It was in the same post you replied to.
|>>|| No. 18856
>We already have a sub replacement fertility rate
Which is good because there's too many of us.
|>>|| No. 18858
>I'd probably question why they didn't tell me beforehand and be a bit annoyed by that, but I'd still suck their cock. Get over yourself, if a woman's attractive to you she shouldn't suddenly become unattractive just because she has a juicy cock.
I can't fucking believe that all of a sudden I have to defend myself for expecting a woman that I have a snog with to have a vagina, and then being turned off upon discovering that she has the opposite set of genitals between her legs.
Precisely one of the reasons why I prefer women, actual women, to men is that I can not see myself intimately touching another person's penis.
And just to make sure, please let's not get into an argument over what constitutes an "actual" woman. I call it the way I see it.
|>>|| No. 18859
It's odd that you're so angry about it.
I still don't understand why a penis is what you draw the line at in an attractive woman. What if your missus wore a strap on?
|>>|| No. 18862
>I still don't understand why a penis is what you draw the line at in an attractive woman
You're kind of accusing me of intolerance here, but you don't seem to tolerate my view point that I don't want to be intimate with a woman, as it were, who has a penis.
Jesus Christ, lad. I'm old but not that old. I grew up as a weelad with images of gender benders like Boy George or Pete Bums, and one of my old teachers had a full sex change a few years after I left that school. So it's not that the concept itself is foreign to me or arouses any sort of disgust in me. All I am saying is, I don't find penises sexually attractive, I can't see myself handling another person's penis, even if it's on a transsexual woman who looks improbably feminine.
So why, all of a sudden, does this make me look bad? If you go outside and ask 50 men in the street, very probably some 40 to 45 men will give you near enough the same answer.
Get your heads out of the clouds, you daft Millennials. We may be the older generation, if really not by much, but if it's now unacceptable to expect a woman that you will have sex with to have a vagina between her legs, then I can't say I sympathise with your lot. Not in that respect anyway.
|>>|| No. 18864
>I still don't understand why a penis is what you draw the line at in an attractive woman.
What's .gs policy on trolling?
|>>|| No. 18865
>You're kind of accusing me of intolerance here
I'm really not. I'm trying to understand something I don't, I said as much, didn't I?
>So it's not that the concept itself is foreign to me or arouses any sort of disgust in me
Then you've missed the point of the entire fucking conversation, haven't you? This was supposed to be an argument about why Ace Ventura was or wasn't offensive. I don't really care if you don't like cock or not, I thought we were on about being disgusted to the point of gagging if you got off with a pretty tranny.
>Get your heads out of the clouds, you daft Millennials
I'm probably older than you. Plus, if what I've seen in Thailand is accurate, the older lads love a bit of ladycock.
|>>|| No. 18867
It's a term I've had trouble internalising as offensive, as I'd never heard it growing up and it just sounds so ridiculous. I understand it's highly offensive and wouldn't ever use it, but for some reason it doesn't make me go "oh dear, don't say that" like most other slurs would. I suppose it's just because it sounds so odd.
|>>|| No. 18868
I don't think I could ever use it because it just sounds so poncey. Apparently it originates from the phrase "black as the ace of spades" and has only been used as a racial pejorative for the past hundred years or so.
|>>|| No. 18869
It's quite obscure outside America. By contrast, we've been calling spades spades for around 500 years, and even then that was because someone got confused between the ancient Greek over "digging a hole".
|>>|| No. 18870
>Apparently it originates from the phrase "black as the ace of spades" and has only been used as a racial pejorative for the past hundred years or so.
That one was actually new to me.
Plus, you can start censoring language any way you please any time an idiom or turn of phrase uses words that are racist under really somewhat entirely different circumstances.
What about sayings like "the pot calling the kettle black" or things like "black humour".
I'm all for keeping language non-racist in casual everyday life, believe me, but there is a limit.
|>>|| No. 18872
>What about sayings like "the pot calling the kettle black" or things like "black humour".
Neither of those phrases turned into a pejorative term for black people. If we had instead started calling black people "kettles" then we'd be on about that instead of spades.
I don't think anyone in their right might is suggesting that using the word 'spade' to mean, well, a spade, is anything other than fine. Apart from that one lad up there, but I think he was taking the piss.
|>>|| No. 18873
I get the impression anyone who uses that word is either 97, or trying to be clever by 'getting away' with using a word that sounds offensive. Either way, I don't think it has much of a place in modern English, in much the same way it always sounds weird when Americans say 'coon' to refer to racoons.
|>>|| No. 18874
Niggardly just makes me think about The Economist when they received a number of complaints from Americans for using the word in an article during the mid-nineties.
|>>|| No. 18875
>If we had instead started calling black people "kettles" then we'd be on about that instead of spades.
Let's be careful not to start it then. You know how people get.
> in much the same way it always sounds weird when Americans say 'coon' to refer to racoons.
"Coonskin hat" is still used as a word though stateside. And nobody seems to construe connotations along the lines of Nazi lamp shades.
|>>|| No. 18876
I don't think coon was/is used much in the US as a racial slur, though I could be wrong. Those lads love a bit of racism.
|>>|| No. 18877
It probably seems more prominent than it actually is thanks to South Park.
|>>|| No. 18878
I know it's very common to use it to mean racoon, and probably most people aren't saying it to have a sly dig at the blacks.
They also call harvest mites "chiggers" which I could never say without feeling like I'd committed a crime.
|>>|| No. 18879
Coon still sees some use as a slur, but it has kind of been waning.
I think nowadays it's more common to call someone a rice nigger. Like other denominations of non-white folk, such as prairie, sand, or ice nigger.
All of them of course hugely racist, although you can't help smirking at some people's inventiveness with language.
|>>|| No. 18880
I think I was about 13 the first time I saw the term sand nigger, during the invasion of Afghanistan. It blew my mind a little about how ridiculous it seemed, as something like rag/towelhead would have sufficed.
|>>|| No. 18882
Let's be careful not to start it then. You know how people get.
Why are you being vague and saying people, when you obviously mean those kettles. Let's call a spade a spade.
|>>|| No. 18909
>If you have to apologise for mistaking someone who looks like a man for a man
They're probably more needing to apologise for saying "erggh" in response, you blinkered pillock.
|>>|| No. 18910
Nobody actually says 'erggh' in real life conversation and noises like that can be highly subjective; one person's 'erggh' can be another person's 'ahh' or 'ohh'.
|>>|| No. 19688
The first transgender man to give birth and seek to be called the child’s father has lost a high court case to protect his privacy despite warning that he and his child could be victimised and bullied as a result.
Freddy McConnell, 32, a Guardian multimedia journalist who transitioned from female to male before giving birth in 2018, can now be named as the first person to give birth who wants to be registered as the child’s father. McConnell had been living as a male for several years, including taking testosterone from the age of 25 and undergoing chest reshaping surgery in Florida, before he sought to get pregnant, which required him to stop taking testosterone.
Prior to attending a fertility clinic he applied for a gender recognition certificate, which was granted before he gave birth. This meant he was legally male when his child was born. But when he went to register the birth and insisted he should be registered as the father, the registrar said he could only be registered as the child’s mother.
McConnell sought a judicial review in the family division of the high court of that decision and during the case, which has yet to conclude, his identity and that of his child were protected by an anonymity order. However, media organisations requested that order was lifted, arguing that McConnell had been cooperating with a documentary about the conception, pregnancy and birth of his child, using his real name, and that he had been interviewed about his experiences in the Guardian.
The judgment on whether he should be allowed to be called the child’s father is expected later this week.
Should someone who is legally male when they give birth be classed as the mother or father?
|>>|| No. 19690
Mother purely to avoid confusion in medical terms. Call them the father every other day of the week, but if they're ever in a hospital or doctor's or anything biology takes precedent.
It can cause more oversight than you might first imagine considering that not all medical staff have access to full medical records. If they don't know someone is trans there are bound to be fuck ups.
|>>|| No. 19691
What a strange game we are playing politically with the concept of truth. When the objective reality is considered a potential taboo.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]