Anonymous wrote:The cruelty is the point. Not a single conservative even cared about women's sports until Trump made it another way to show hatred towards people who aren't like them.

The NCAA announced that there were only 10 transgender athletes competing in women's sports. It's such an inconsequential issue as to boggle the mind why anyone would care. The point is not to help "real" women, it's to vice signal that they hate anyone who doesn't stuff themselves into a box that conforms to their narrow and ignorant worldview.

It's all Fox and MAGA messaging. Their voters are too uneducated and brainwashed to go and fact check. MAGA is one big hateful lie. The reason people become MAGA is it allows them to be racist, misogynistic, homophobic and hide all of it behind religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know.

I'd say the "lady" doeth protest too much.

She does have a rather handsome look about her, with her really large manly head, hands, strong prominent brow, and a very masculine jawline. Maybe she's recently been the subject of similar slurs, perhaps some of the MAGAs have accused her of being a trans woman.

Perhaps she's just having a triggering moment.

Still doesn't excuse her very bad behavior.

Right because we should be making fun of how women look.

No one is making fun of how she looks, just digging in the psychology of it all. Hey she ditched her femininity a long time ago. You have to be tough to have been the first female to graduate from the Citadel. I'm sure she's had more than one person compare her looks and demeanor to those of a man.

Growing your hair out and getting a boob job can't wipe away the kind of conditioning necessary to survive the Citadel and or to want to be the "first" at all. So maybe on some level she had/has doubts about her gender. But what was her choice back then? Those born into the wrong body, 30-40 years ago had not the freedom of young people today. The choice triggers her, she sucked it up so why can't they.

I've no doubt that being born into the body of the wrong gender is a real thing, all things exist on a spectrum after all. I remember watching Paris Is Burning as a young adult and feeling a great deal of sadness for some of the characters who talked about saving up money so that they could transition surgically. I mean some of the trans women were so delicate, graceful, feminine and beautiful that it was clear to me that they were more "woman" and feminine than I'd ever be. And because of this life was dangerous for them so much so that I'm almost certain Venus Butterfly didn't live long enough to get her surgery. Had she been born 40 years later she wouldn't have had to live on the fringes and prostitute herself in order to raise the funds to pay for gender reassignment surgery. For the Venus Butterflies of the world I am grateful that times changed.

So I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that she's feeling triggered. Maybe she was born into the wrong body herself and is angry that she didn't have the opportunity, freedom and acceptance that people born into the wrong body have today. Imagine if she didn't have something to prove she might have chosen an entirely different path than the Citadel. She could have, lived as a man, chosen the Citadel and still had the freedom to reveal her trans roots and run for office as the first Trans Congressman were she/he coming of age today. I mean I'm sure she gets brownies from the MAGA crowd which probably explains some of her behavior, but I can't help but think her stance also looks an awful lot I didn't get any breaks so why should they.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cruelty is the point. Not a single conservative even cared about women's sports until Trump made it another way to show hatred towards people who aren't like them.

The NCAA announced that there were only 10 transgender athletes competing in women's sports. It's such an inconsequential issue as to boggle the mind why anyone would care. The point is not to help "real" women, it's to vice signal that they hate anyone who doesn't stuff themselves into a box that conforms to their narrow and ignorant worldview.

If it’s such an inconsequential issue, why is it a hill that you and Democrats are willing to die on? Liberals insist on biological men competing with women as a form of “civil rights” when the vast majority of the country sees it as unfair competition. Men’s and women’s sports are separate for a reason, yet radical liberals insist that women compete with men who have a biological advantage over them. You care so much about the rights of trans competitors, yet not the rights of women athletes and their right to fair competition.

I actually don’t care about it at all.
I don’t think anyone should care about it
And I don’t think republicans DO care about it.
I think they use it as an excuse to be transphobic aholes and I think this clip proves that

Whoa, hold on now. You dare to dictate what people can care about ? What do you think this the People Republic of China ? No Sir, not on my watch. This is Taiwan brother.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm cisgender and in no way consider being called cisgender offensive. It's like being called heterosexual, which I also don't think is offensive.

Okay, but you don’t get to speak for everyone. I’m a registered Democrat who voted for Harris, and I find the word profoundly offensive. Why? Because it is, in my view, a religious slur. I am not part of and do not believe in gender ideology, and I do not want to adopt its religious tenets, nor do I want to be referred to using the derogatory term that adherents use for non-believers. There are many terms that religious groups use to insult (and provoke violence against) outsiders. I am not going to repeat the most vile of them here, but consider how the term “infidel” is used by some religious groups. “Cisgender” is just another version of “infidel.”

And the point is that even if you disagree with me completely, as is your right, there are many people—many of whom did not and would never vote for Trump—who consider the term cisgender to be extremely and deeply offensive. So, why is it acceptable to keep using the term?

This + 1 million.
I'm a registered Republican who voted for Harris (couldn't stomach Trump, the man) even though I lean conservative and agree with the majority of GOP views on political and social views.

They'll never admit it but many Democrats lost their way and continue to not see just how far gone down the rabbit hole they went with the extreme Trans/LGBTQ gender ideology cult-like mentality. The result....Trump with the antithesis - just another extreme cult-like mentality to counter another.

I listened to clip. If the term she used is a slur -- OMG -- people really do need to use common sense and get tougher skin. Suck it up buttercup. Every word is a slur nowadays and every opinion is bigoted or racist. No wonder our society is where it is now.

Sure I voted for Harris but the way some Democrats continue down this rabbit hole I'll most assuredly vote red when it's someone other than Trump...he won't live forever...maybe just in the history books.

Ok we’ll just bring racial slurs back then shall we and you can tell Black people ‘suck it up buttercup’

T****y is freaking rude as hell and actually nothing to do with liberal policies on gender. It’s just rude and cruel and this lady is an awful awful person

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cruelty is the point. Not a single conservative even cared about women's sports until Trump made it another way to show hatred towards people who aren't like them.

The NCAA announced that there were only 10 transgender athletes competing in women's sports. It's such an inconsequential issue as to boggle the mind why anyone would care. The point is not to help "real" women, it's to vice signal that they hate anyone who doesn't stuff themselves into a box that conforms to their narrow and ignorant worldview.

If it’s such an inconsequential issue, why is it a hill that you and Democrats are willing to die on? Liberals insist on biological men competing with women as a form of “civil rights” when the vast majority of the country sees it as unfair competition. Men’s and women’s sports are separate for a reason, yet radical liberals insist that women compete with men who have a biological advantage over them. You care so much about the rights of trans competitors, yet not the rights of women athletes and their right to fair competition.

I actually don’t care about it at all.
I don’t think anyone should care about it
And I don’t think republicans DO care about it.
I think they use it as an excuse to be transphobic aholes and I think this clip proves that

Two things can be true:

1. Disapproval of Mace's mocking.
2. Disbelief that a man can be a woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cruelty is the point. Not a single conservative even cared about women's sports until Trump made it another way to show hatred towards people who aren't like them.

The NCAA announced that there were only 10 transgender athletes competing in women's sports. It's such an inconsequential issue as to boggle the mind why anyone would care. The point is not to help "real" women, it's to vice signal that they hate anyone who doesn't stuff themselves into a box that conforms to their narrow and ignorant worldview.

Women’s sports didn’t require care and feeding until males decided to push their way into them. Once the gates had been breached, it required a response.

And for every transgender woman athlete, there is a significant blast radius that affects dozens of women.

Are you for real? Women’s sports required multiple lawsuits and federal legislation, which Republicans opposed at every turn.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm cisgender and in no way consider being called cisgender offensive. It's like being called heterosexual, which I also don't think is offensive.

Okay, but you don’t get to speak for everyone. I’m a registered Democrat who voted for Harris, and I find the word profoundly offensive. Why? Because it is, in my view, a religious slur. I am not part of and do not believe in gender ideology, and I do not want to adopt its religious tenets, nor do I want to be referred to using the derogatory term that adherents use for non-believers. There are many terms that religious groups use to insult (and provoke violence against) outsiders. I am not going to repeat the most vile of them here, but consider how the term “infidel” is used by some religious groups. “Cisgender” is just another version of “infidel.”

And the point is that even if you disagree with me completely, as is your right, there are many people—many of whom did not and would never vote for Trump—who consider the term cisgender to be extremely and deeply offensive. So, why is it acceptable to keep using the term?

....You are this disturbed at being called "cis"? Amazing. Would you be ok with "not trans"?

Why is this so hard for you? Cis is a slur and is used as one. “Not trans” is descriptive language inasmuch as “not Catholic” is descriptive, in both cases not being slurs. Therefore, using cis is not okay, while saying “not trans” is okay.

I see "cis" in the same category as "white", which by itself is just descriptive. It's not a slur.

Okay? And I disagree completely, and consider it a profoundly offensive slur.

And now that you know many women find it offensive, you’ll stop using it, right?

I'm a cis woman and I give everybody permission to use the word "cis".

Although I do like PP's idea that we can only call people "Not XYZ" because it sounds fun, such as calling PP "not educated", "not intelligent", and "not somebody that people invite to parties"

Well, unfortunately, we have at least one Cis woman that says she’s offended. So, that must control under the rule “never offend an even one person of a particular group”, which I believe is codified in official Liberal Rule Book for an Ordered Society, or something like that.

If this was not the case then I could still see my beloved Redskins play, instead of the ridiculous Commanders, b/c plenty of NA that had no problem w/the name.

PP -- thanks for bringing this up. 100% truth. We had an ultra liberal neighbor who (during the whole Redskins debacle) insisted that if even one person was offended then it must be stopped. I'm sorry...but turnaround is fair play.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm cisgender and in no way consider being called cisgender offensive. It's like being called heterosexual, which I also don't think is offensive.

Okay, but you don’t get to speak for everyone. I’m a registered Democrat who voted for Harris, and I find the word profoundly offensive. Why? Because it is, in my view, a religious slur. I am not part of and do not believe in gender ideology, and I do not want to adopt its religious tenets, nor do I want to be referred to using the derogatory term that adherents use for non-believers. There are many terms that religious groups use to insult (and provoke violence against) outsiders. I am not going to repeat the most vile of them here, but consider how the term “infidel” is used by some religious groups. “Cisgender” is just another version of “infidel.”

And the point is that even if you disagree with me completely, as is your right, there are many people—many of whom did not and would never vote for Trump—who consider the term cisgender to be extremely and deeply offensive. So, why is it acceptable to keep using the term?

....You are this disturbed at being called "cis"? Amazing. Would you be ok with "not trans"?

Why is this so hard for you? Cis is a slur and is used as one. “Not trans” is descriptive language inasmuch as “not Catholic” is descriptive, in both cases not being slurs. Therefore, using cis is not okay, while saying “not trans” is okay.

I see "cis" in the same category as "white", which by itself is just descriptive. It's not a slur.

Okay? And I disagree completely, and consider it a profoundly offensive slur.

And now that you know many women find it offensive, you’ll stop using it, right?

I'm a cis woman and I give everybody permission to use the word "cis".

Although I do like PP's idea that we can only call people "Not XYZ" because it sounds fun, such as calling PP "not educated", "not intelligent", and "not somebody that people invite to parties"

Well, unfortunately, we have at least one Cis woman that says she’s offended. So, that must control under the rule “never offend an even one person of a particular group”, which I believe is codified in official Liberal Rule Book for an Ordered Society, or something like that.

If this was not the case then I could still see my beloved Redskins play, instead of the ridiculous Commanders, b/c plenty of NA that had no problem w/the name.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm cisgender and in no way consider being called cisgender offensive. It's like being called heterosexual, which I also don't think is offensive.

Okay, but you don’t get to speak for everyone. I’m a registered Democrat who voted for Harris, and I find the word profoundly offensive. Why? Because it is, in my view, a religious slur. I am not part of and do not believe in gender ideology, and I do not want to adopt its religious tenets, nor do I want to be referred to using the derogatory term that adherents use for non-believers. There are many terms that religious groups use to insult (and provoke violence against) outsiders. I am not going to repeat the most vile of them here, but consider how the term “infidel” is used by some religious groups. “Cisgender” is just another version of “infidel.”

And the point is that even if you disagree with me completely, as is your right, there are many people—many of whom did not and would never vote for Trump—who consider the term cisgender to be extremely and deeply offensive. So, why is it acceptable to keep using the term?

....You are this disturbed at being called "cis"? Amazing. Would you be ok with "not trans"?

Why is this so hard for you? Cis is a slur and is used as one. “Not trans” is descriptive language inasmuch as “not Catholic” is descriptive, in both cases not being slurs. Therefore, using cis is not okay, while saying “not trans” is okay.

I see "cis" in the same category as "white", which by itself is just descriptive. It's not a slur.

Okay? And I disagree completely, and consider it a profoundly offensive slur.

And now that you know many women find it offensive, you’ll stop using it, right?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


No.

Okay, then don’t get so worked up and upset when someone uses the t-word slur.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm cisgender and in no way consider being called cisgender offensive. It's like being called heterosexual, which I also don't think is offensive.

Okay, but you don’t get to speak for everyone. I’m a registered Democrat who voted for Harris, and I find the word profoundly offensive. Why? Because it is, in my view, a religious slur. I am not part of and do not believe in gender ideology, and I do not want to adopt its religious tenets, nor do I want to be referred to using the derogatory term that adherents use for non-believers. There are many terms that religious groups use to insult (and provoke violence against) outsiders. I am not going to repeat the most vile of them here, but consider how the term “infidel” is used by some religious groups. “Cisgender” is just another version of “infidel.”

And the point is that even if you disagree with me completely, as is your right, there are many people—many of whom did not and would never vote for Trump—who consider the term cisgender to be extremely and deeply offensive. So, why is it acceptable to keep using the term?

....You are this disturbed at being called "cis"? Amazing. Would you be ok with "not trans"?

Why is this so hard for you? Cis is a slur and is used as one. “Not trans” is descriptive language inasmuch as “not Catholic” is descriptive, in both cases not being slurs. Therefore, using cis is not okay, while saying “not trans” is okay.

I see "cis" in the same category as "white", which by itself is just descriptive. It's not a slur.

Okay? And I disagree completely, and consider it a profoundly offensive slur.

And now that you know many women find it offensive, you’ll stop using it, right?

I'm a cis woman and I give everybody permission to use the word "cis".

Although I do like PP's idea that we can only call people "Not XYZ" because it sounds fun, such as calling PP "not educated", "not intelligent", and "not somebody that people invite to parties"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm cisgender and in no way consider being called cisgender offensive. It's like being called heterosexual, which I also don't think is offensive.

Okay, but you don’t get to speak for everyone. I’m a registered Democrat who voted for Harris, and I find the word profoundly offensive. Why? Because it is, in my view, a religious slur. I am not part of and do not believe in gender ideology, and I do not want to adopt its religious tenets, nor do I want to be referred to using the derogatory term that adherents use for non-believers. There are many terms that religious groups use to insult (and provoke violence against) outsiders. I am not going to repeat the most vile of them here, but consider how the term “infidel” is used by some religious groups. “Cisgender” is just another version of “infidel.”

And the point is that even if you disagree with me completely, as is your right, there are many people—many of whom did not and would never vote for Trump—who consider the term cisgender to be extremely and deeply offensive. So, why is it acceptable to keep using the term?

....You are this disturbed at being called "cis"? Amazing. Would you be ok with "not trans"?

Why is this so hard for you? Cis is a slur and is used as one. “Not trans” is descriptive language inasmuch as “not Catholic” is descriptive, in both cases not being slurs. Therefore, using cis is not okay, while saying “not trans” is okay.

I see "cis" in the same category as "white", which by itself is just descriptive. It's not a slur.

Okay? And I disagree completely, and consider it a profoundly offensive slur.

And now that you know many women find it offensive, you’ll stop using it, right?

Here's the thing about the whole gender ideology -- I'm so tired of the confusion between gender as in the sex someone is born with and gender as in gender identity. I think we all should ensure that when we use the term gender we are clear on whether we are talking sex or gender identity. Gender when referring to the sex you were born with -- of which there are only 2 (male/female) plus Intersex (less than 2% of population and based on scientific/medical proof). Gender when referring to Gender Identity is where the terms "cis" "trans" "non-binary" come into play.

As for the whole use of "cis" - I don't find it necessarily offensive...but rather I find it pointless and will never refer to myself as "cis". By default it should always be assumed that everyone is "cis" at birth. Should they choose to later consider themselves as a different gender identity that's perfectly fine and should be respected. But the norm -- what the majority of the population is -- should be the default and therefore the use of "cis" is irrelevant.

My concern with how the extremist left have taken over the Democrats it seems -- is their underlying goal of basically erasing all references related to "sex" and "gender identity" as if nobody is born male or female (or even intersex) -- as if there is no gender identity at birth. That is what I do have a real problem with...and more importantly the insistence that this way of thinking is the only way of thinking...that this is and should be the norm. This is the insanity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm cisgender and in no way consider being called cisgender offensive. It's like being called heterosexual, which I also don't think is offensive.

Okay, but you don’t get to speak for everyone. I’m a registered Democrat who voted for Harris, and I find the word profoundly offensive. Why? Because it is, in my view, a religious slur. I am not part of and do not believe in gender ideology, and I do not want to adopt its religious tenets, nor do I want to be referred to using the derogatory term that adherents use for non-believers. There are many terms that religious groups use to insult (and provoke violence against) outsiders. I am not going to repeat the most vile of them here, but consider how the term “infidel” is used by some religious groups. “Cisgender” is just another version of “infidel.”

And the point is that even if you disagree with me completely, as is your right, there are many people—many of whom did not and would never vote for Trump—who consider the term cisgender to be extremely and deeply offensive. So, why is it acceptable to keep using the term?

....You are this disturbed at being called "cis"? Amazing. Would you be ok with "not trans"?

Why is this so hard for you? Cis is a slur and is used as one. “Not trans” is descriptive language inasmuch as “not Catholic” is descriptive, in both cases not being slurs. Therefore, using cis is not okay, while saying “not trans” is okay.

I see "cis" in the same category as "white", which by itself is just descriptive. It's not a slur.

Okay? And I disagree completely, and consider it a profoundly offensive slur.

And now that you know many women find it offensive, you’ll stop using it, right?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


No.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm cisgender and in no way consider being called cisgender offensive. It's like being called heterosexual, which I also don't think is offensive.

Okay, but you don’t get to speak for everyone. I’m a registered Democrat who voted for Harris, and I find the word profoundly offensive. Why? Because it is, in my view, a religious slur. I am not part of and do not believe in gender ideology, and I do not want to adopt its religious tenets, nor do I want to be referred to using the derogatory term that adherents use for non-believers. There are many terms that religious groups use to insult (and provoke violence against) outsiders. I am not going to repeat the most vile of them here, but consider how the term “infidel” is used by some religious groups. “Cisgender” is just another version of “infidel.”

And the point is that even if you disagree with me completely, as is your right, there are many people—many of whom did not and would never vote for Trump—who consider the term cisgender to be extremely and deeply offensive. So, why is it acceptable to keep using the term?

This + 1 million.
I'm a registered Republican who voted for Harris (couldn't stomach Trump, the man) even though I lean conservative and agree with the majority of GOP views on political and social views.

They'll never admit it but many Democrats lost their way and continue to not see just how far gone down the rabbit hole they went with the extreme Trans/LGBTQ gender ideology cult-like mentality. The result....Trump with the antithesis - just another extreme cult-like mentality to counter another.

I listened to clip. If the term she used is a slur -- OMG -- people really do need to use common sense and get tougher skin. Suck it up buttercup. Every word is a slur nowadays and every opinion is bigoted or racist. No wonder our society is where it is now.

Sure I voted for Harris but the way some Democrats continue down this rabbit hole I'll most assuredly vote red when it's someone other than Trump...he won't live forever...maybe just in the history books.

Anonymous wrote:The cruelty is the point. Not a single conservative even cared about women's sports until Trump made it another way to show hatred towards people who aren't like them.

The NCAA announced that there were only 10 transgender athletes competing in women's sports. It's such an inconsequential issue as to boggle the mind why anyone would care. The point is not to help "real" women, it's to vice signal that they hate anyone who doesn't stuff themselves into a box that conforms to their narrow and ignorant worldview.

If it’s such an inconsequential issue, why is it a hill that you and Democrats are willing to die on? Liberals insist on biological men competing with women as a form of “civil rights” when the vast majority of the country sees it as unfair competition. Men’s and women’s sports are separate for a reason, yet radical liberals insist that women compete with men who have a biological advantage over them. You care so much about the rights of trans competitors, yet not the rights of women athletes and their right to fair competition.