its about to get even worse, trannybros

it’s about to get even worse, troonybros…

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Weird how trans people can only exist if they censor others and medicalize child sexuality.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      I love to censor rightoids, as it is funny and they are subhumans.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I'm far left. Trannies are far right nazis. Eugenics is not leftist...

        >Weird how trans people can only exist if they censor others
        You're on NSFFW, on the troony board, that largely disproves your hypothesis.
        >and medicalize child sexuality.
        Children don't have sexuality. Crushes maybe, and the foundation for an actual sexuality is there, granted. I don't even know what your point is here. Trans people aren't medicalising anything that wasn't medicalised decades ago.

        Children have sexuality. Children have sex and experience sexual thoughts. You saying they don't doesn't change that.

        • 2 years ago
          Pomegranate

          @FBI

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            What? Do you think kids never ever have sexual thoughts about other people? Do you think people just don't have sex till they turn 18? It's weird how conservatives on pol AND trannies both push the "kids don't have sexual thoughts!" meme to justify their weird sexually repressive bullshit

        • 2 years ago
          Sybil

          What? Do you think kids never ever have sexual thoughts about other people? Do you think people just don't have sex till they turn 18? It's weird how conservatives on pol AND trannies both push the "kids don't have sexual thoughts!" meme to justify their weird sexually repressive bullshit

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            It's weird how you just shut down when this is brought up. Holy frick you people are so repressed it's brutal.

            I was in the locker room at age 5-6 changing for swim and looking at other boys. It was nice. I don't think I'm the only one to have a similar experience. Did you not grow up around other horny boys?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          They don't unless they've been sexually abused or groomed. You're outing yourself as having an incredibly fricked up mindset regarding kids

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >see other boys naked
            >feels good
            >this means I was abused
            no

            Why is this board so socially conservative and puritanical?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >>see other boys naked
            good
            >>this means I was abused
            Your experience isn't universal. I and most people I know didn't have sexual thoughts until puberty. And yeah, the vast majority of the time, early onset of sexuality IS the result of abuse. You're just making yourself seem moronic here.

            Btw you haven't defended any of your other original points

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            but your claim is that it never happens - that kids who experience sexual thoughts were abused into it which is wrong
            you are a morally puritanical social conservative trying to enforce your beliefs upon others who disagree and want to express themselves in ways you don't approve of

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus Christ excuse me for not posting a completely nuanced dissection of my opinions on a topic at 6am. Never made any black and white statements, only spoke about it in the general sense.

            >you are a morally puritanical social conservative trying to enforce your beliefs upon others who disagree and want to express themselves in ways you don't approve of
            You're actually moronic. You seriously think that someone's a conservative because they don't exactly react positively to someone saying "children have sexuality" on a website filled with poltards and pedos? I'm hoping for the sake of your own IQ that you're a troll.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You sincerely think that kids never experience sexual attraction at all? I just don't get it. Are you for real? You think that sexuality just clicks on during puberty and there's nothing before then?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Did you.. Not read anything I actually said? Because I am not particularly interested in repeating myself or having to elaborate. Surely you can take meaning from the however many responses I've made already.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            i don’t know how or why this debate got started in this thread but certainly not sexual attraction. sexuality maybe, like a gay boy is going to develop crushes on boys, but there won’t be sexual attraction there just romantic attraction ig

            tf is the point of this argument tho?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >certainly not sexual attraction
            because you personally didn't it's impossible?
            I'm not ENCOURAGING kids to have sexy thoughts, I'm just saying it does happen and it's weird for you to outright deny it, and then it morphs into the standard Christian conservative narrative that if kids have sexuality they were abused. What you are saying just happens to align with social conservative talking points used against gays for decades.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >6 am
            angloid detected, opinion rejected

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Jesus Christ excuse me for not posting a completely nuanced dissection of my opinions on a topic at 6am
            You can't be mad or complain that people point out or disagree with your half-baked points. That's like the dumbest thing to do, not to be prick but you're responsible for getting your point across, hell no one made you think about these questions or type a response?
            >You seriously think that someone's a conservative because they don't exactly react positively to someone saying "children have sexuality" on a website filled with poltards and pedos?
            So why not ask for clarification, are you this dense? I'm sorry but when someone says something that I read into, I ask for clarification or respond with "Are you saying". Go to fricking sleep if you're this incompetent at talking on fricking NSFFW anon.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            you're wrong and insane. here's some attention for it

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >They don't unless they've been sexually abused or groomed.
            Lol what? I'm not anon but that doesn't make sense. Sex is an inherent thing
            >inb4 asexuals let's not worry on the minorities here.
            The fact that the Amish exist or people who live in very religious or sexually strict households or communities are proof of that. What happens if a child (well let's be clear about child) a pre-pubescent kids i.e. 11 or 12 year olds start going through puberty and realizing that they girls or boys are kind of cool and "cute"? Or what happens whey young boys pop boners? Were they sexually abused or groomed?
            >Your experience isn't universal
            Are you entertaining the ideal of the possibility or do you have a stat or anything to think that most kids who have sexual experience were abused or groom in some way?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Children don't want sex, they don't understand what it is. They can have crushes, look at people a certain way, to an extent, sure, but y'all are making it seem like kids are out here having the same capacity for attraction as adults. They don't.

            >What happens if a child (well let's be clear about child) a pre-pubescent kids i.e. 11 or 12 year olds start going through puberty and realizing that they girls or boys are kind of cool and "cute"?
            Have half the people in this thread forgotten how to read or what? I've already addressed this in another response.

            >6 am
            angloid detected, opinion rejected

            Not an Angloid.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            mm they do have sex ed for kids and I was definitely aware of the rudimentaries
            I liked looking at other boys bodies from a very young age and if the cute ones had touched me I would have liked it
            your arguments are usually brought out by christian conservatives to justify anti-gay suppression because innately gay kids are impossible to them

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Let's clarify some things, by children what do you mean? Specifically what age range are we talking about here?
            >but y'all are making it seem like kids are out here having the same capacity for attraction as adults. They don't.
            Are you arguing in bad faith or do you just think everyone who disagrees with you has the same beliefs or ideas? Ofc kids don't have the same level or capacity as adults, but we can't act like children don't hold SOME depending on which age range we're talking about?

            What exactly do you by don't understand? Does one need to have a thorough understanding of self and others to justify sexuality or can it simply be that a person "LIKES" someone else and that's enough? And please don't respond with
            >PEDO, Groomer, Abusert
            Because that makes you look stupid if the only way you can combat this is idea is with buzz words that really don't mean shit (they're supposed to) these days

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Have half the people in this thread forgotten how to read or what? I've already addressed this in another response.
            So I'm expected read every single post of yours now? Unless I've misread or skipped something in THE post I responded to I don't know why you're acting as if everyone's acting immature or incompetent, it seems like you're not willing to have a conversation or discussion as its an inconvenience to you, so why bother responding or making a post in this thread?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, if you respond to someone in a thread, the general expectation is that you actually follow the conversation

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Have you ever had a conversation on NSFFW before? You act as if this is something that's very structured and not as if people are coming and going and responding to anything first that catches their eyes, but this is pointless to argue about

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            newbies are hopelessly naïve

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not new, you're just the first person I've seen on LGBT or really any other board I peruse and there's serious convo going on, but hey if you want to use /misc/ as your shinning example I'm not surprised since there's a lot of people coming from /misc/ to here anyways.

    • 2 years ago
      Sybil

      how can you not want to censor people who call for your murder?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >call for your murder?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        So far this year, 30 of the 1.6 million americans who identify as transgender have been murdered

        that's over 0.0018% of all trans people

        https://www.hrc.org/resources/fatal-violence-against-the-transgender-and-gender-non-conforming-community-in-2022

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Weird how trans people can only exist if they censor others
      You're on NSFFW, on the troony board, that largely disproves your hypothesis.
      >and medicalize child sexuality.
      Children don't have sexuality. Crushes maybe, and the foundation for an actual sexuality is there, granted. I don't even know what your point is here. Trans people aren't medicalising anything that wasn't medicalised decades ago.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        they're wrong about the medicalizing sexuality part but some kids (I mean like 10-17) do have a sexuality. but that's not a reason to outright ban hrt or call for the death of trans people. even if kids lacked sex drives, cons would just say "trannies are destroying God's image" or just call back on it being "disgusting". Cons need a valid reason to hate trannies or lgbt people in general, they'll just find one

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >(10-17)
          Well of course adolescents have sexuality, that age range is a bit moronic.

          Obviously there's more nuance to it than "no child has any sexuality whatsoever" but in the vast majority of cases, a proper sexuality only really develops during puberty.

          A 10yo isn't going to want sex though, they hardly understand or care as to what it is. They'll notice shit, sure, but there's far more to sexuality than just "wow that woman looks pretty"

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Well no? I mean I get where they're coming from but I'd rather take hours of racism from losers then whatever LEGAL punishment these Muslims or Indians allow. Plus I've learned to not really "care" about shit on Social Media. The problem isn't to censor but to find the source of the discrimination and combat it lol, censoring people and pushing them away to be fricking awful doesn't do nothing but create sites like NSFFW (well some aspects) or KiwiFarms, good job on consolidating all that hatred into place lol.

        >Children don't have sexuality.
        I'd have to disagree with this. What are you actually trying to say here? You say they may have a foundation for an actual sexuality as if they need to grow into it more, but can you just say that with anybody who doesn't know their own body. There's literal 19 and 20 year olds who are JUST NOW realizing that they've been living a lie or realize that they never really liked guys or girls or people for that matter?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Did you not read past the 1st sentence

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I did but I still don't get how you can say that and follow it up with this?
            >Crushes maybe, and the foundation for an actual sexuality is there, granted.
            I don't give a crap about what the argument about trans people and medicalizing children's sexuality. Can you expand on your point because it sounds (to me atleast) you're downplaying what children actually go through?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Jesus Christ excuse me for not posting a completely nuanced dissection of my opinions on a topic at 6am
            You can't be mad or complain that people point out or disagree with your half-baked points. That's like the dumbest thing to do, not to be prick but you're responsible for getting your point across, hell no one made you think about these questions or type a response?
            >You seriously think that someone's a conservative because they don't exactly react positively to someone saying "children have sexuality" on a website filled with poltards and pedos?
            So why not ask for clarification, are you this dense? I'm sorry but when someone says something that I read into, I ask for clarification or respond with "Are you saying". Go to fricking sleep if you're this incompetent at talking on fricking NSFFW anon.

            Well sexuality is a pretty broad thing, isn't it? When I said "and the foundation for an actual sexuality is there, granted", I meant that kids can know what they like and perhaps even have a vague sense of types etc but they're hardly going to be having a fully fledged sexuality, complete with full capacity for sexual attraction, desire for sex, etc etc.

            I'm not sure what the other anon means exactly when they say sexual attraction because honestly I highly doubt a 5-6yo is going to be having full boners at the sight of someone but I'm sure kids can find someone appealing.

            My understanding of the matter is that even if kids (ie pre pubescents) figure out what their genitalia is for, and have some sort of attraction, that the extent of things is that stimulation feels good and that's it really. A child isn't going to look at someone and think "I want to bone that" or whatever. The only times I've ever heard of anything going further, it was either CSA or COCSA.

            >So why not ask for clarification, are you this dense? I'm sorry but when someone says something that I read into, I ask for clarification or respond with "Are you saying". Go to fricking sleep if you're this incompetent at talking on fricking NSFFW anon.
            Why the frick would I ask for clarification when, let's face it, you and I both know that there was going to be a 90% chance you're just gonna regurgitate the same tired pedo crap? Especially when you're talking about whiny trannies and the like. I don't expect people on here to respond in good faith.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Well sexuality is a pretty broad thing, isn't it?
            Well let's explain it well enough to make it not so broad then?
            >I meant that kids can know what they like and perhaps even have a vague sense of types etc but they're hardly going to be having a fully fledged sexuality, complete with full capacity for sexual attraction, desire for sex, etc etc.
            Do you think they need to have all these requirements for sexual attraction? Do you think gay children needed to understand what they were feeling completely or the "drive". What about boys during puberty then with their wandering thoughts or their erections? The way I see things is that like you said earlier there's basically levels to this. Now there's an discussion to be had on what level do kids have attraction or even begin to consciously realize they are. Though if a kid is already able to realize they like a certain person more than a friend and have vague ideas of love and sex, doesn't that already constitute for sexuality, or are we going to ignore or just assume all these kids who became teens or adults talking about their experiences younger don't count or they were all abused?

            >I'm not sure what the other anon means exactly when they say sexual attraction because honestly I highly doubt a 5-6yo is going to be having full boners at the sight of someone but I'm sure kids can find someone appealing.
            Did the other guy say 5-6 or did YOU just think that? That's not to blame you, but this is why its important to clearly expand on general things to be assumed. I think problem is really that we're just talking about very different age ranges and their experiences
            >Why the frick would I ask for clarification when, let's face it, you and I both know that there was going to be a 90% chance you're just gonna regurgitate the same tired pedo crap?
            Dumb point when this just validates your carelessness for discussion if you have a 90% guess I was going to argue in bad faith.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you think they need to have all these requirements for sexual attraction? Do you think gay children needed to understand what they were feeling completely or the "drive". What about boys during puberty then with their wandering thoughts or their erections?
            No to both.

            >Though if a kid is already able to realize they like a certain person more than a friend and have vague ideas of love and sex, doesn't that already constitute for sexuality
            It's a sexuality in the most vague of terms, yeah

            >Did the other guy say 5-6 or did YOU just think that?
            He said so, unless I misread something

            >Dumb point when this just validates your carelessness for discussion if you have a 90% guess I was going to argue in bad faith
            Not really IMO. I've tried and done the whole "assume it's good faith unless evidence to the contrary" thing, it almost never works out in discussions like these because the vast majority of the time I wind up having to explain why children can't consent or why pedophilia is bad, actually. Factor in that this thread was originally made to discuss a trans issue, something that's bound to attract poltards, and I'm sure you can see where this is going.

            You know what, I'm just gonna admit it, that was a piss poor argument from my end. I decided to preemptively get pissed off and be a b***h, turns out we probably agree for the most part. Not gonna defend it, just gonna admit I was wrong on this front.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >>I decided to preemptively get pissed off and be a b***h, turns out we probably agree for the most part. Not gonna defend it, just gonna admit I was wrong on this front.
            FRICK. I mean thanks for being civil and I really don't care you agree (its not but whatever) I just dumb writing this post now, but its late and you were able to be civil so let's just call this off (or you can keep reading if you want to)

            >No to both.
            So do you think your idea or checklist isn't that accurate? I'm assuming by no you agree these are valid exceptions that are examples of
            A) No abusing
            B) No grooming
            Correct?
            >It's a sexuality in the most vague of terms, yeah
            How's it vague? The thing I find interesting is that there's this sort of patronizing look on children as if they don't know are don't get it and it's understandable, they're kids, wtf do they know about? But as we get older is there really any clarity? I mean we're both on /lgbt/ so I can assume that we both didn't understand our own bodies and feelings right?

            >He said so, unless I misread something
            This is why I personally want to re-define certain words in our convo, I don't think like the other anon and I have no idea where he was going with his point?

            >Consent n Pedophilia
            Yes, children cant consent (at least to adults that is) and yes Pedophilia is bad and an adult fricking a kid is bad morally and illegally. Did this clear any bad faith up?

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    I have never met a single person that actually wanted 100% true free speech with 0 censorship
    I've met many whom claim that, but they are lying or didn't actually think it through

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Yep. Zero censorship would mean spambots and child abuse pictures.

    • 2 years ago
      fellow repressed transgender

      >I have never met a single person that actually wanted 100% true free speech with 0 censorship
      >I have never met a white person with a triple digit IQ

      I believe you

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >in my political view trans people are groomers sexualizing children and should be rounded up and executed

    I see comments like these every single day of my life when I come on this website. Is it really that shocking to normies?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      idk moron maybe just call someone who says that an edgy homosexual instead of ruining the internet to protect the feelings of the shittiest people imaginable

      i see more psycho shit written by normalgays in the wapo and nyt comment sections

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    they've stopped hiding their blind rage behind "protect the children" guise and outright advocating for a Hitler like figure to wipe out the queers.

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >post is about how rightoids are becoming increasingly hyped about doing pogroms and targeted harassment of LGBTQ
    >conversation devolves into non nuanced conversation on whether >18s have sexuality
    what is going on

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      conservative Christians believe kids don't have pre-pubertal sexuality as a way of supporting their point that being gay is a choice, so kids who have gay thoughts before puberty were raped

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >northern India and Muslims
    Mad how indian muslims are supposedly poor oppressed victims but when they try to organize within their subversive islamist movements or they rape and kill non muslims no one bats an eye.

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Translation
    >people can’t have free speech because then they might say the wrong things.

  8. 2 years ago
    BigGuy

    >We must abolish freedom of speech to protect the feefees of men with boob implants who like to wear diapers!

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >be on NSFFW
    >unironically believe a lack of moderation leads to a better site
    NSFFW really is inhabited by morons

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    i'm not concerned about that at all

  11. 2 years ago
    Rrobynne — Discord Hash 3144

    Now is the time to be preparing laying the groundwork for the social infrastructure we're going to need to have any chance of surviving what comes next without our knowledge & culture being suppressed back into another dark age of gender rigidity like what came with the 1800s, you all understand that, right? Like, this is it, right now, the grace period is passing before our eyes while we talk about blanchardism and diaper fetishes and shit instead of networking and distributing DIY info, hormones, martial arts training etc. to maxx out the quality of life of as many trans and gender dysphoric people as possible. Get moving!

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      based

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        idk about htat

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >without strict censorship everyone ends up wanting to kill me!

    And whose fault is that?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      the people who want to kill me

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *