“Anything women can do, men can do better”.
Lol, so cuz I disagree with some pile of shit MRA in a reblog, apparently my site is a haven for nastiness like this now? “Got this from genderbitch’s site. I shouldn’t be surprised. ” Damn right you shouldn’t be surprised, but not for the bullshit reasons you implied, cuz I regularly attack MRAs, radscum and other bigoted shitstacks.
Is everything you do spin and lies or do you sleep sometimes, ptsdreamy?
Don’t take it too hard that they’re grabbing things out of context and attributing words to you that you’d only quoted for specific purposes. They’ve all been feeling down since Cathy Brennan told them she was a trans woman. Right from her site: “I am a trans woman.”
Hey, alexandraerin, address me. Respond to me.
Don’t bring up Cathy Brennan like she’s some bugaboo monster, in a thread where she’s not been mentioned.I get that you have a hate-on for her (quelle surprise!), but she doesn’t factor in this conversation, and I’ll kindly thank you not to try to go off-topic. If you don’t have anything to contribute, stay quiet.
I was responding to Kinsey, thank you very much. If I were to address someone further up thread directly, it wouldn’t actually be you as you’re the one who “in all fairness” pointed out that the thing you’re all hate-loling about Kinsey saying isn’t something that Kinsey actually said.
Though I think you’re being a little too… soft… in your correction there. The people above you are basically arguing that because those words appeared on Kinsey’s blog, that’s somehow typical of her and “nasty”. But the same words now appear on all our blogs… yours, mine, everybody who has reblogged to comment on them.
Talk about hypocritical. Talk about not caring about the truth, as long as it suits one’s preconceived dogma.
Now that’s why I emphasized “directly” in the first paragraph. My invocation of an unrelated person (Ms. Brennan, in this case) with words that appeared on her blog but didn’t actually represent something she said (a title of a post where the title is a question written from the point of view of a hypothetical/generalized trans* woman) is a parallel to the original post above.
You see?
Cathy Brennan I regard as fair game not because I have a “hate-on” for her but because she publicly encourages this kind of nonsense and regularly indulges in it herself. That, and she actively lobbies against my existence.
Actively lobbying against someone’s existence > a snide joke here or there.
In case you were wondering.
But anyway, you folks are all about how objective and reasonable and rational you are and how crazy and violent and desperate we are, and how we take things out of context. So let’s have a little more reasonableness from you. Let’s hear you say in no uncertain terms what you think of the disgusting manipulation of someone’s words that started out this thread. Let’s hear whether you think the person above owes Kinsey an apology for making it appear that she said something that she reblogged to respond to, as you have reblogged to respond with me.
Your page says you want to deal brutally with hypocrisy. So deal brutally with the hypocrite who started this thread.
Since, you know, you wanted to converse with me.
Oh, you’re right. I do want to converse with you. And you give me so much material to work with.
For example:
I was responding to Kinsey
About me. So let’s not play coy; if you want to talk to me, or about me, don’t act all surprised when I answer. And certainly don’t act offended when I catch you trying to tangent off on the thread by mentioning something else entirely.
you as you’re the one who “in all fairness” pointed out that the thing you’re all hate-loling about Kinsey saying isn’t something that Kinsey actually said.
I’m also the OP, you know. I found the original link on GB’s page and posted it. Subsequently, I linked to the actual author, with the addendum that GB agrees with the statement.
The people above you are basically arguing that because those words appeared on Kinsey’s blog, that’s somehow typical of her and “nasty”
And I stand by that statement. GB has a history of ‘nastiness’ (including that ptsdreamy reference, which is a throwback to the fact that she and a few friends of hers tried to trigger a PTSD survivor (myself) into a disassociative state). But even without that context, the fact that she’s more concerned about the terminology than the fact that women’s health centres are under constant attack from political forces that would see them eradicated, is pretty damn nasty to me.
And it is typical of her.
My invocation of an unrelated person (Ms. Brennan, in this case) with words that appeared on her blog but didn’t actually represent something she said (a title of a post where the title is a question written from the point of view of a hypothetical/generalized trans* woman) is a parallel to the original post above.
So basically that sentence distills down to: Cathy Brennan says things I disagree with so I’ll make an example by bringing her up in a completely unrelated conversation to score rhetorical points because neener neener that’s why.
Like I said: talk about the issues, namely the fact that gb couldn’t care less about the majority of women who access those health centres she’s so against.Let’s hear you say in no uncertain terms what you think of the disgusting manipulation of someone’s words that started out this thread.
If there was manipulation, I’d be against it. However, I didn’t manipulate a single thing, and in fact later clarified the point in question in order to give “credit” where it’s due.
I’ve never said that gb said the words, only that she supports and endorses them.Let’s hear whether you think the person above owes Kinsey an apology for making it appear that she said something that she reblogged to respond to
If I’m in the wrong, I apologize. Since I’m not wrong, I owe gb nothing at all. Nihurog (I know I spelled that wrong) said it, GB endorsed it, and when asked, I clarified with alacrity. That doesn’t erase the fact that genderbitch would throw 99.99% of (poor, woc) women under the bus for the sake of the 0.01% of trans men who access the service.
Maybe you’d like to address that.
I’m going to hit the high notes here.
I’ve never said that gb said the words, only that she supports and endorses them.
But that’s not true… she didn’t endorse the words. You’re lying, and you’re lying in that really bald-faced way that radical feminists seem to do where anybody can just go back to the original post in question to see the truth.
What you are saying is exactly the opposite of observable reality. She reblogged him to disagree with him. Her post disagrees with the words you quoted “from her page”. Calling the fact that she reblogged it to respond to it “agreement”… well, you reblogged my response, does that mean you agree with it? Obviously not.
So basically that sentence distills down to: Cathy Brennan says things I disagree with so I’ll make an example by bringing her up in a completely unrelated conversation to score rhetorical points because neener neener that’s why.
Is “neener neener neener” why you did this to Kinsey? Because again, my purpose was to draw a parallel to help you understand why accusing Kinsey of supporting a position because it appeared on her page as part of a rebuttal to it was ridiculous… not to score rhetorical points.
Although yes, I confess to having realized you were the original poster. Again, making a point. Increasingly unsurprised that you’re not getting it.
If I’m in the wrong, I apologize.
Okay.
Well, there are two possibilities here. Either reblogging something to disagree with it is endorsing it, in which case you’re not wrong but we both somehow completely agree with each other on everything we’ve said here and that’s really weird… or you are wrong, and you owe somebody an apology.
(And in case anybody thinks that it’s ambiguous whether Kinsey was agreeing or not, I’ll just remind everyone what appropriately-inappropriate is calling Kinsey’s “endorsement”. Here’s the exact quote:
I wish fuckers who don’t know shit about what’s being talked about would shut the fuck up until they do. Maybe even past then. As penance for even wanting to talk about shit they’re ignorant as fuck about.
That’s what’s being called an “endorsement”.
Calling the speaker a f***er who doesn’t know s**t about the topic, wishing they would shut up and learn something, and wishing they would stay quiet even after they’ve learned something.
This constitutes endorsement, when it’s coming from a trans* woman and is directed at an MRA.
How?
Why?
How?
How does that work?
The radfem desire to bend everything they observe into a shape that fits their preconceived notions of INTERNET TRANS PEOPLE ARE AWFUL HUMAN BEINGS WHO ARE VIOLENTLY IN FAVOR OF ALL THE BAD THINGS is getting more and more ridiculous by the day.)
