I think it's a pretty clever idea for a bot here, if that's any encouragement. :)
0% chance you would have any problem with the "body language" if you had seen this image with no context, lol. There is literally nothing odd about the body language, at all.
People don't even realize how deeply bias affects their interpretation.
He was in his 40s, not 70s, lmao, wtf are you talking about? Zero chance that was the reason she married him.
imo, actual patriotism would be more like "I want to make my house as good as I can."
You don't have to think your country is the best to be patriotic with respect to that country.
Additional charges against who, exactly? The shooter is dead.
I'm not sure what point there is to even spending any time ascertaining motive. It's not like you're going to use it against him on his court date, he's dead.
The "the family is not pressing charges" line also seems like it kinda goes without saying...
The original comment was a joke
copium
you’re projecting your own outrage
lmao, you're not fooling anybody.
Versus the hundreds of millions of moments they didn't, lol. You're just like the people who think the rate of crime is always going up, because instead of looking at the actual statistics, they just go by the 'thousands of moments' they see in the 24 hour news cycle.
Please acquaint yourself with what cherry picking is, before you scoff at being called out for doing it, while enthusiastically confirming you're doing it, lol.
P.S. "Republican logic", lol, fucking hyperpartisan brainrot. Telling on yourself.
Not evidence, cherry-picked anecdotes. The Redditor's typical standard of evidence, sure, but not one that actually is valid.
Who tf calls cis women female women?
As I said, "if asked directly to refer to a trans person's sex and gender". I know that in general parlance no one describes anyone like that. Next time, try reading the entire sentence before reacting.
Why single trans people out because of something we already don't like about ourselves?
The big irony of this sentence is that this post literally had nothing to do with trans people at all, but an outrage junkie just couldn't resist getting offended over nothing, so they decided there was transphobia where there wasn't.
Just say "in reproductive terms, trans women may take the male role,"
Don't hold your breath for any significant portion of the population to ever go along with something this ridiculously convoluted. By the way, "the male role" is sexist. It's always amusing to see horseshoe theory in action.
Fact is, the vast majority of people don't and won't use male/female
However, simply waltzing into a conversation and saying "um actually you're transphobic because you said the female body doesn't have testicles" is both rude and wrong.
This is what you lot are doing, and literally trying to turn it around to the exact opposite of what happened here, lol. Not gonna let you move that goalpost, sorry.
How can you not see the irony of making this big stink about how words can be used different ways, while simultaneously calling someone a transphobe/bigot for using a word in an accurate way, that happens to be not the way you want to use it? The telltale stench of "rules for thee, not for me".
Ruth Gader Binsburg
Traitorapist
Oh come on, you're not even trying now, lol
It is absolutely not different colloquially. Among the general population, if asked directly to refer to a trans person's sex and gender, you'd be extremely hard-pressed to find anyone who'd actually describe a trans woman, for example, as a "female woman"--because that's how the general population describes cis women.
But in the majority of cases, it's neither here nor there because the vast majority of people never really use the terms male/female at all, whether the subject is human or not--even their pets are typically considered "boys" or "girls".
For the above reason especially, it's absolutely inappropriate to throw the "transphobe" label on the rare person who actually does use male/female, and correctly to boot.
It'd be like calling someone a transphobe for saying "trans women can't get ovarian cancer", a statement that is inarguably 100% true.
Well, "female" as an adjective referring to people already means woman.
No, it doesn't. Female is a sex, not a gender identity.
The whole idea of being trans is that one's sex and gender identity don't sync up in the way they typically do, right?
So if someone says they're trans, and you ask them how their sex and gender identity are out of sync, would you ever expect their reply to ever be "because I'm female and identify as a woman"?
Of course you wouldn't. That's how a woman who isn't trans would describe herself.
And "female" as a noun (e.g., "the females") is a terrible way to refer to people, to begin with.
Like it or not, there is no other single word in English that covers everyone of that sex, encompassing all ages. So it (along with the noun "male", of course) definitely has circumstances where it's perfectly appropriate to use.
Females don't have testicles, males do. That's just a fact. Trans women, as males, also do. (at least from birth)
To claim that such a statement is erasure of trans people carries with it the implication that sex and gender are the same thing (since you're interpreting "female" as a gender identity), which completely undermines the whole premise upon which the very idea of being "trans" relies (that is, that sex and gender identity are two distinct, independently-varying things).
You can't have it both ways. Either you accept that trans men/women are both men/women (gender identity) and female/male (sex), or you 're-combine' sex and gender by insisting that female/male also describe gender identity, adding a superfluous extra set of terms for gender identity, and simultaneously leaving sex with zero ways to be expressed linguistically.
And if the latter, how does a doctor, for example, know whether a patient has a prostate (which ideally is checked yearly above the age of 40) to check, if the "m" on their chart doesn't designate sex? Well, you'd have to have a checkbox on the chart that basically says 'do you have a prostate', and a similar one for every other homologous body part. But why have one box for each part when certain things always exist together (e.g. prostate and testes)? So we'll end up with two boxes, one for each such set of body parts, and look at that, we just went the long way around to invent the concept of "sex" all over again.
Identify however you like, but we need a way to make those kinds of distinctions between the two fundamental 'sets' of body parts sometimes. It doesn't take away from your gender identity at all to do so when appropriate. So stop trying to screw things up and confuse everyone for no reason, lol.
TL;DR: Having testicles has nothing to do with your gender identity one way or the other (according to trans activists themselves), so it makes no sense to condemn a statement as transphobic for mentioning a relationship between having testicles and something other than gender identity.
"Female" is a descriptor of sex (element of anatomy), not gender identity (element of consciousness). Considering that the whole foundation of the notion of being trans relies on sex and gender being two distinct things, it literally can't be transphobic to use a sex adjective to refer to homologous body parts that are inherent to that sex, because being trans is all about variations of gender identity, not sex--the two don't actually intersect.
For example, only males/females are capable of suffering from prostate/ovarian cancer--and this population includes trans women/men.
correlated with a value of 0.11
lol, so essentially no correlation.