The fact that you think it's a reasonable and logical question is the entire reason I thought you were accusing me of being a bigot in the FIRST PLACE.

But you waffle hand waved that away as it being that I should have known you weren't calling me a bigot, because no bigot activity took place in your eyes. Lmfao wtf is going on

This is incredible, you claim to concede that I was not calling you a bigot, then accuse me of calling you a bigot several times in the same post.

Nah. It's very common for people to be like BUT ARE YOU TRANSPHOBIC/RACIST BRO after someone says something reasonable to discredit them/ignore arguing with their actual points. So common that I'd argue it's more reasonable for me to believe you were doing that, than assuming we should know exactly what you mean when you give us a tiny piece of some hypothetical scenario that is being played out in your head.

It's not reasonable at all to have to confirm/deny if you are a racist or a bigot because those questions shouldn't even be asked without evidence or assumption as such.

Once again somehow we are suppose to magically know the order of the hypothetical likelihoods in your head, instead of just viewing that you thought it likely enough to ask. Once again this is an argument of you trying to say "but when I say something, it really doesn't mean anything! Can't you tell I have no idea whats going on!"

But I literally didn't. Where did I then say you were calling me a bigot?

Nope no waffle from me, that is just you no u ing and lazily copying my absolutely correct observations about you.

The quote above is more clear nonsensical waffle.

I dont get within a trillion miles of arguing any of the strawmen above.

You should have known I was not calling you a bigot because I never once argued or suggested you were its that simple to someone who is not hysterical.

I have made no claims that relate to me observing bigotry, that again is something you are conjuring from absolute thin air.

I have taken your claims that you never made the claim trans are not more deceptive, and that no one else has argued that at face value, that is all.

At face value, you should try it sometime, instead of attempting the most incredible fantastical mental gymnastics just to get to think someone called you a biggot.

Nah, you just acted in such a way that it's reasonable to believe you thought that bigoted behavior was occurring because of the topic existing or because of the length of it. That's why I originally said you are implying or framing it as such, not saying that "I" personally was a bigot.

You thought it likely enough to bring up, but I'm not suppose to draw any conclusions from it, instead I'm suppose to draw the conclusion that you have no idea about anything you are responding about but for some reason assume bigotry is potentially occurring, so much so that it must be asked if it is?

We are back to your words not meaning anything. I'm fine with that.

What the actual ****.

This is some off the scale YOU! ing going on here.

As is common on the interwebs, I replied to the post above by tame dueces, with little to none understanding of your contribution to the tangent so far, so, again how am I engaged in some sub text against you?

A grunched reply to the post above is super super standard on the internet.

The gymnastics to be a victim are incredible, you are a weird dude.

Yes you are supposed to draw the obvious and clear conclusions.

Conclusions:

Here are a list of perfectly in context questions and inquires about the tangent of the thread.

Utter Projection:

OH he must be calling me a bigot.

Once again I'm no longer arguing that you were trying to imply I was a bigot, just that your post was stupid and that it was dumb to include the bigoted part in the first place. I do however think it is irresponsible to ask it without looking to see if any activity like that occurred, I don't see the benefit from your question but certainly see the confusion it could cause.

I'll be sure to inform you of any bigotry that may be being spread upon your entrance of any other thread I see you post in, since that was all you were looking for. You da Bigot Hunta

It's not in context at all though, that's the point.

The fact that you believe that is likely what was going on to spawn or lengthen the conversation, shows why someone should be concerned if someone was implying if it was bigoted in the first place. It's also why it's reasonable to assume that you may be trying to imply that someone is a bigot! How do you not understand this.

And again any questions about possible bigoted contributions are not aimed at the starter of a tangent as such contributions can happen at any time.

Like do you even get that I was not really talking to you?

I know its a public forum, but my reply was to tame dueces and my questions where aimed towards him.

Sure anyone can answer, most understanding the internet would get the above and factor it in.

Not you though.

Its obvious to everyone you are engaged in a massive walk back from you called me a biggot to your list of perfectly reasonable questions was something something waffle waffle.

Let's break it down, this is what you did, you noted what was being discussed then said:

"Sure smells like there is some transphobia here, is there?"

And the reason you find it reasonable to ask that is because of the context of what was being discussed and the length of it. That transphobia must be coming from somewhere, it's logical to assume you'd believe its coming from the side of the people who are continuing the conversation in such a manner as to say that they SHOULD have to disclose (you had this context before you try to wave it away). As the originator of the topic and the one who was most active in pushing my opinion on it, surely it's reasonable that I assume I'M the one you assume the bigotry is emanating from?

You'll wave this away as saying it was only a "possible" explanation, but then why did you ask it in the first place?

Yes it appears allowing cis hetero men to identity in ANY WAY that allows them to express their truth that they are only attracted to cis hetero women is being banned on most platforms as hateful with the reasoning it demonstrates 'hate' of trans females who are then rejected.

An absurdity in logic and pure hypocrisy considering this category exists and was defined to allow people who are not attracted to cis people, and only attracted to non-cis people to own their truth in a brave way.


You CANNOT accept the above to be legit and ok and yet say for cis hetero males, saying they only like cis hetero females is 'hate' due to its exclusion of trans.

I mean you can, if you a leftist running a very clear dishonest agenda and need to use smears and slander to try to bludgeon others either in to compliance or silence.



Of course it should be but uke won't admit that.

This ultimately is an agenda, the far left supports.

It is the deliberate use of slander and smears to let any cis hetero sexual male that if they state their truth, they will be labeled in the community as a bigot and trans phobe.

A hetero sexual cis male can only be attracted to hetero sexual cis females and yet not be at all bigoted or trans phobic. This is just their desires and preference.

You can see how deep here the rot runs and how corruptible some platforms are to this nonsense, banning any cis hetero man who speaks his truth.

And worst of all how COMPLICIT the broader left is. Most in the broader left would not agree with this banning or stance and would allow cis hetero males their truth but they stay silent, either not caring or cowed by the bullying tactics of the far left to just say silent.

The above is a big part of the Cancel Culture on the left that so many on this forum deny exists.

Once again I haven't walked back anything. I believe it to be perfectly reasonable to assume from what you originally said that you were framing someone with my opinion or concerns as a likely bigot. My "concession" was me taking you on your word (which I really shouldn't do, you seem pathological) that it wasn't what you meant, and that I should have assumed you were clueless, and treated you as such.

I should not ask questions about possible explanations?

The rest of your post is pure strawman.

You are just naive about how discussion happens and are also engaged in massive gymnastics to arrive at being a victim.

I asked tame some questions, that is it, the incredible amount of sand this put up your vagina is again really really weird.

Also if you look at actual responses in this very thread after I brought up said topic, more than half were implying I'm a transphobe or I was engaging/feeding into transphobic tropes. So yeah it's not me being hyper defensive it's literally the go to response when you ask if trans should have to declare before they engage with someone in sex when they know its about to occur.

Yes arguing on the interwebs that trans people are more deceptive is a complete analogue with raping a child.

This is your craziest act of gymnastics yet.

Absolutely bizarre.

Why are you comparing two different things? Is it because you have a propensity to twist things, as I originally assumed?

I'm comparing you asking me if I'm a transphobe/bigot to me asking you if you're a pedophile.

Rapist/Racist/Murderer/Transphobe/Homophobe all pretty interchangeable in the severity of what you are asking.

So is it what I assumed awhile ago, someone incorrectly being labeled a transphobe is not a big deal to you?

Being an actual child rapist is a lot worse than being a bigot, so asking if you one or the other is not remotely the same.

So no twisting.

Asking if someone has engaged in a behaviour that has happened in this thread several times is again absolutely and utterly reasonable and again your attempts to associate that with child rape is again just off the charts weird.

A close friend experienced this a couple of years back, which is why it piqued my interest in this thread. He's a decent guy and probably made no fuzz about it there and then, but I certainly got the distinct impression he felt badly treated. Not everyone is the "oh well, on to the next date then!"-type.

I don't know if "fool" is the right word. Often I suspect it is more that it feels uncomfortable to bring up the issue to strangers. That's understandable, but this is still very cumbersome not to know upfront. Sure, a date is a place to learn things about another person, but people do have preferences and that is okay.

It seems like a lot of this would be resolved with categories for matching, at least in regards to online services. I think some of them have been very slow when it comes to rolling those options out.

I'm not associating it with child rape. I'm associating asking someone randomly if they are a horrible thing is ok in your book. You think racists/transphobes aren't as bad of a label to carry around as being a pedo, that's completely your opinion.

I'm not diminishing child rape, not all pedos even act on their attraction. Your outrage is proof positive as to why you should not be slinging around bigot suspicions so cavalierly. You just don't think it's a big deal to be labeled one, I do.

If you think pedo is on the same level as bigot then lol you because that is a scorching hot take.

However I never randomly asked a specific person if they are a horrible thing so its a moot tangent/strawman on every level.

Thanks for answering my post in the manner it was intended, must have been hard..........

Yeah once again cutting my quotes short. Just stop talking to me clown. If you must engage with me and want to quote me, use the full quote, as you have proven that you will twist anything I say.