Breakfast Club & Comedian Lil Duval Gettin Heat For Interview Question About Trannies

17891012

Comments

  • Madame_CJSkywalker
    Madame_CJSkywalker Members Posts: 940 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2017

    i wasn't invited to that rally...but that is nothing i can cosign

    and bruh i'm not just making ? up to argue with you

    many neurologist agree there are basic behavioral differences between the sexes, but most we associate with a person's physical gender are not hard wired
    At first glance, studies of the brain seem to offer a way out of this age-old nature/nurture dilemma. Any difference in the structure or activation of male and female brains is indisputably biological. However, the assumption that differences are also innate or “hardwired” is invalid, given all we’ve learned about the plasticity, or malleability of the brain. Simply put, experiences change our brains

    Yes, men and women are psychologically different and yes, neuroscientists are uncovering many differences in brain anatomy and physiology which seem to explain our behavioral differences. But just because a difference is biological doesn’t mean it is “hard-wired"
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/girl-brain-boy-brain/

    http://www.newsweek.com/why-parents-may-cause-gender-differences-kids-79501

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2744358/Guess-girls-Men-Venus-Expert-says-brains-not-hardwired-different-ways.html


    whereas where is this proof or evidence that the way in which men and women react to homosexuality is innate? try me. if there is a legitimate argument to be made i'm willing to listen and change my position

    not to mention not every straight man responds in the same matter or reacts violently to homosexuality

    so i do believe the evidence today leans towards the theory most the aversion to homosexuality is largely rooted in homophobia....

    regardless i don't necessarily believe that the reaction of men and women should be the same, but i think one exploding into a violent rage is very problematic ...same as this inclination or desire to shun all things ? but to a way lesser degree

    Alright, we're arguing two different things, and it's my fault because I didn't pay close enough attention to what you're saying. I wasn't really trying to argue against the malleability of the differences. I was just pointing out that there are differences and they need to be accepted. If you're suggesting that because those differences can be changed, they should be changed. Why? Why can't males be males and females be females? Why do we have to work as a society to try and make us the same. If females flock more to socially interactive careers and males flock more to mathematical careers (which data shows to be true), why can't that just be what it is? If females want to go to those mathematical careers, they should be embraced, but why should there be an initiative to push females in that direction?

    all i'm arguing is this violent or strong aversion to homosexuality isn't necessarily innate

    and if these behavioral differences manifest in ways that endanger and make life unbearable for others the idea that these behaviors can be modified isn't far fetched or should be shunned


    The bold is hilariously circular. Homophobia is basically just used as a catch all word for any negative feeling towards homosexuality, so you basically just said that most of the aversion to homosexuality is rooted in an aversion to homosexuality. That's not saying anything. Is some of the aversion to homosexuality societal? Yes, but not all of it and I wouldn't even say most. Homosexuality has been around for forever, and so has hatred of it, so some of that has to just come from natural instinct against it.

    i meant the evidence today leans towards the theory that our reactions to ? and trans ppl are rooted in homophobia to a large degree... and homophobia i'd argue stems for religious and patriarchal ideologies

    even with some women they will look and touch but the mere thought or suggestion of them being ? is meet with contempt

    and again there is difference in the way ? and trans women are treated compared to how ? and trans men are treated
  • The Lonious Monk
    The Lonious Monk Members Posts: 26,258 ✭✭✭✭✭

    all i'm arguing is this violent or strong aversion to homosexuality isn't necessarily innate

    and if these behavioral differences manifest in ways that endanger and make life unbearable for others the idea that these behaviors can be modified isn't far fetched or shunned

    I don't think a strong aversion to homosexuality is innate either, at least not to humanity in general. However, for some people it is and some people are quick to resort to violence.
    i meant the evidence today leans towards the theory that our reactions to ? and trans ppl are rooted in homophobia to a large degree... and homophobia i'd argue stems for religious and patriarchal ideologies

    even with some women they will look and touch but the mere thought or suggestion of them being ? is meet with contempt

    and again there is difference in the way ? and trans women are treated compared to how ? and trans men are treated

    Again, that doesn't mean anything. Homophobia in this context is defined as an irrational dislike of homosexuality. So saying that negative reactions to ? people is rooted in homophobia is basically just saying that people don't have a good reason to dislike homosexuality or are disliking homosexuality for the sake of it. I don't think that's true. Me personally, I don't care about ? people. I'm a Christian, so I think it's sinful, but I don't have negative feelings towards ? as people. That said, flamboyantly effeminate males annoy me. It's not homophobia that makes me feel that way. It's just part of my personality. We have have our quirks.

  • Madame_CJSkywalker
    Madame_CJSkywalker Members Posts: 940 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2017

    all i'm arguing is this violent or strong aversion to homosexuality isn't necessarily innate

    and if these behavioral differences manifest in ways that endanger and make life unbearable for others the idea that these behaviors can be modified isn't far fetched or shunned

    I don't think a strong aversion to homosexuality is innate either, at least not to humanity in general. However, for some people it is and some people are quick to resort to violence.
    i meant the evidence today leans towards the theory that our reactions to ? and trans ppl are rooted in homophobia to a large degree... and homophobia i'd argue stems for religious and patriarchal ideologies

    even with some women they will look and touch but the mere thought or suggestion of them being ? is meet with contempt

    and again there is difference in the way ? and trans women are treated compared to how ? and trans men are treated

    Again, that doesn't mean anything. Homophobia in this context is defined as an irrational dislike of homosexuality. So saying that negative reactions to ? people is rooted in homophobia is basically just saying that people don't have a good reason to dislike homosexuality or are disliking homosexuality for the sake of it. I don't think that's true. Me personally, I don't care about ? people. I'm a Christian, so I think it's sinful, but I don't have negative feelings towards ? as people. That said, flamboyantly effeminate males annoy me. It's not homophobia that makes me feel that way. It's just part of my personality. We have have our quirks.

    can we agree that a lot of our reactions to ? ppl or whatever stimuli whether the reaction be violent, negative, apathetic, positive, etc has a lot to do with our surroundings, social conditioning, experiences, etc

    it's not just innate

    the way we interact with others is far from innate in this day and age

    even our personalities aren't just hardwired

    and again I'd argue that the strong aversion to homosexuality stems from religious and patriarchal ideologies and institutions

    that and I do believe we have a natural unease around anyone we consider out the norm or "other" for evolutionary reasons

  • LordZuko
    LordZuko Members Posts: 2,473 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Children don't have an innate fear of fire. It's not until they are burnt maybe more than once that children learn "fire hot"

    Most things are socially learned because human beings are *gasp* social creatures. This doesn't mean that something isn't natural.

    To make another comparison, there are people who adopt exotic pets, this animal learns to be sociable around people. Now this animal's natural environment can be a forest, jungle, swamp whatever. However most times when that owner wants to get rid of that pet, there can't just go to a forest or nearest wilderness and just live. The social learning of that animal has more often than not made it incompatible to it's natural environment. Animals are taught how to exist in their environment by their parents.

    The nature vs nurture argument when it comes to the "rightness" of people's reactions towards outside groups is circular logic. Morality is not universal but shaped by the needs of society. The reason that we, and predominantly through feminine influence, are being pushed towards the acceptance of a nonsensical spectrum of sexuality and gender expression is because there are influential white ? abound with enough money and political pull.
  • blackrain
    blackrain Members, Moderators Posts: 27,269 Regulator
    LordZuko wrote: »
    What it boils down to is this: can't nobody tell a man what to think, or how to react, nor can anyone tell a man what to say.

    Madam whatever the ? and who else can argue all day long that saying killing a ? in a wig for fooling you is wrong, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it. But they can't stop the repercussions from happening they not gonna stop men from being men and saying what they feel and standing on it.

    I stand with duval on the principle he has a right to express his feelings and his thoughts. I also stand with him because he stood on his word. Too many ? ass ? back down at the slightest hint of disapproval. ? anybody who thinks they can police how a man thinks or what he says.

    There's nothing to argue about beyond this point.

    Of course he has the right to express his feelings and thoughts just as others have the right to express their disapproval. The freedom to say what you want doesn't mean people can't also respond to it with disapproval.
  • The Lonious Monk
    The Lonious Monk Members Posts: 26,258 ✭✭✭✭✭
    can we agree that a lot of our reactions to ? ppl or whatever stimuli whether the reaction be violent, negative, apathetic, positive, etc has a lot to do with our surroundings, social conditioning, experiences, etc

    it's not just innate

    the way we interact with others is far from innate in this day and age

    even our personalities aren't just hardwired

    and again I'd argue that the strong aversion to homosexuality stems from religious and patriarchal ideologies and institutions

    that and I do believe we have a natural unease around anyone we consider out the norm or "other" for evolutionary reasons

    I don't think anyone would argue that our surroundings and environment play some part in our reactions. We think you're overstating how those surroundings are responsible as opposed to our own innate feelings and preconceptions. Yes, as human beings we all are capable of changing over time That doesn't mean that feelings we have will change or that they aren't real.
  • LordZuko
    LordZuko Members Posts: 2,473 ✭✭✭✭✭
    blackrain wrote: »
    LordZuko wrote: »
    What it boils down to is this: can't nobody tell a man what to think, or how to react, nor can anyone tell a man what to say.

    Madam whatever the ? and who else can argue all day long that saying killing a ? in a wig for fooling you is wrong, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it. But they can't stop the repercussions from happening they not gonna stop men from being men and saying what they feel and standing on it.

    I stand with duval on the principle he has a right to express his feelings and his thoughts. I also stand with him because he stood on his word. Too many ? ass ? back down at the slightest hint of disapproval. ? anybody who thinks they can police how a man thinks or what he says.

    There's nothing to argue about beyond this point.

    Of course he has the right to express his feelings and thoughts just as others have the right to express their disapproval. The freedom to say what you want doesn't mean people can't also respond to it with disapproval.

    That's not what i said. I'm referring specifically to when Charlemagne told Duvall he couldn't say what he said. That's not expressing an opinion that's trying to police my speech.
    Charlemagne can say he disagrees with what Duvall said but i wholesale refuse to allow a ? to tell me what i can or cannot say. That's the point.
  • blackrain
    blackrain Members, Moderators Posts: 27,269 Regulator
    LordZuko wrote: »
    blackrain wrote: »
    LordZuko wrote: »
    What it boils down to is this: can't nobody tell a man what to think, or how to react, nor can anyone tell a man what to say.

    Madam whatever the ? and who else can argue all day long that saying killing a ? in a wig for fooling you is wrong, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it. But they can't stop the repercussions from happening they not gonna stop men from being men and saying what they feel and standing on it.

    I stand with duval on the principle he has a right to express his feelings and his thoughts. I also stand with him because he stood on his word. Too many ? ass ? back down at the slightest hint of disapproval. ? anybody who thinks they can police how a man thinks or what he says.

    There's nothing to argue about beyond this point.

    Of course he has the right to express his feelings and thoughts just as others have the right to express their disapproval. The freedom to say what you want doesn't mean people can't also respond to it with disapproval.

    That's not what i said. I'm referring specifically to when Charlemagne told Duvall he couldn't say what he said. That's not expressing an opinion that's trying to police my speech.
    Charlemagne can say he disagrees with what Duvall said but i wholesale refuse to allow a ? to tell me what i can or cannot say. That's the point.

    Well there are literally certain things you can't say w/o legal consequence. So if you're willing to accept those legal consequences, which you know majority of people aren't, then go ahead. But if you're not then it's not a bad idea to not say some ? that could get you in legal trouble
  • LEMZIMUS_RAMSEY
    LEMZIMUS_RAMSEY Members, Writer Posts: 17,670 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I HAVE BEEN POSTING HERE SINCE 2013.
    all i can say is that there is a strong pro ? , pro trans little group of posters who are using different tactics to slowly but firmly force their views in that site.

    BCOTTON 5 with his always more edgy jokes.
    It came from 'hummm' to YMCMB artists to him recently posting ultra ? stuff.

    Now we got that CJSKYWALKER poster who is adopting the other angle: psychology.

    THANK ? NONE OF THEM ARE EFFECTIVE. except that the tendency to accept more and more openly ? stuff is RISING.

    Whats happenning in the IC is a exemple of whats happening in the physical world of black people: the push for the black american effeminization aka psycholocal sterelizatìon by the supremacist side of white people is ongoing.

    Dont get fooled. Stay wiiide awake. And eventually BAN THESE INFLITATORS BEFORE THEY INFECT THE SPACE.
  • LEMZIMUS_RAMSEY
    LEMZIMUS_RAMSEY Members, Writer Posts: 17,670 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Have yall witnessed WHY SHE DOESNT ENGAGE DEBATE WITH ME?

    Its because i interract and work with ? and trans people socially. So she cant use the YOU ARE HOMOPHOBIC tactic. Thus she dodges.

    And she is trying to insert fake ideas and unnecessary debates to you who are for the most not in interraction with socially.

    DONT FALL FOR HER PSEUDO ? ? .
    Real people who are into ? psychology talk about HOMOEROTISM. And all 98% of her post are full of ? .

    Stop entertaining that poster. He/she maybe a trans who hides behind a female ID just to push his UNLOGIC AND UNEXPERIENCED BELIEFS AND IDEAS.

  • LEMZIMUS_RAMSEY
    LEMZIMUS_RAMSEY Members, Writer Posts: 17,670 ✭✭✭✭✭
    These STARBUCK BLACK WOMEN all around the western world think that they are the next thing by acting ULTRA HIPSTER.
    Its not good to act ghetto AND its not good to act BOHEMIAN WHITE just to FIT IN.

    While some black men are fighting their own historical and societal battles, black women are acting totally obilivious.

    - they maintain the flame of Jim Crow, and he didnt ask for their help : fake hair, ' ive got austrian roots in me' origin whitening stuff

    - they support idias that seperate them from the black community, their community : additional dumb trans right, bisexuality. Homosexuality is for the riches not the poor. It take facility, access to expensive precaution and contraception.

  • 2stepz_ahead
    2stepz_ahead Guests, Members, Writer, Content Producer Posts: 32,324 ✭✭✭✭✭


    These muthafuckas on Twitter can ? themselves!!! A transexual woman IS *clap* STILL *clap* A MUTHAFUCKIN *clap* MAN *clap*

    The only thing I will somewhat agree on is that they SHOULDN'T be able to trick anybody cuz they STILL look like a MUTHAFUCKIN MAN!

    This stupid ? or ? in that tweeet need to educate ITSELF on the XY Chromosome.

    Any ? that gets tricked deserves a free pair of prescription eyeglasses when they hit tha bing for life for being dumb as ? . Duck ass ? .

    I know it's ? on the IC that think otherwise. Yall not being politically correct. Yall are ? . Own up to that ? .

    Like my ? @BOSSExcellence would say...





















































    LESBIANS!!!!

    only women clap inbetween words bruh....

    just saying


    you lesbian
  • texas409
    texas409 Members Posts: 20,854 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2017
    Trollio wrote: »
    texas409 wrote: »
    EmM HoLLa. wrote: »
    I don't give a damn what u change too.. If you are born a man.. You're a man to me.. If you're born a woman you're a woman to me.. Period.. End of discussion..

    its a damn shame that this needs to be said in 2017.

    Why wasnt it said back when you got that ? number?

    You ungreatful internet ? . I was on my lil duvall ? way before lil duval said ? . I exposed the ? for who and what it was and all y'all did was make corny jokes accusing me of smashing SMH. You ? should be thanking me I took that L so one of you ? wouldn't be doing a life sentence for murder
  • Idiopathic Joker
    Idiopathic Joker Members, Moderators Posts: 45,691 Regulator
    texas409 wrote: »
    Trollio wrote: »
    texas409 wrote: »
    EmM HoLLa. wrote: »
    I don't give a damn what u change too.. If you are born a man.. You're a man to me.. If you're born a woman you're a woman to me.. Period.. End of discussion..

    its a damn shame that this needs to be said in 2017.

    Why wasnt it said back when you got that ? number?

    You ungreatful internet ? . I was on my lil duvall ? way before lil duval said ? . I exposed the ? for who and what it was and all y'all did was make corny jokes accusing me of smashing SMH. You ? should be thanking me I took that L so one of you ? wouldn't be doing a life sentence for murder

    Really???
  • texas409
    texas409 Members Posts: 20,854 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Black women in America are losing big by taking the wrong Battles.

    I been saying this they are losing in almost everything they perceive right and fair. Some of them really are trying to destroy our communities
  • Madame_CJSkywalker
    Madame_CJSkywalker Members Posts: 940 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2017
    Have yall witnessed WHY SHE DOESNT ENGAGE DEBATE WITH ME?

    Its because i interract and work with ? and trans people socially. So she cant use the YOU ARE HOMOPHOBIC tactic. Thus she dodges.

    And she is trying to insert fake ideas and unnecessary debates to you who are for the most not in interraction with socially.

    DONT FALL FOR HER PSEUDO ? ? .
    Real people who are into ? psychology talk about HOMOEROTISM. And all 98% of her post are full of ? .

    Stop entertaining that poster. He/she maybe a trans who hides behind a female ID just to push his UNLOGIC AND UNEXPERIENCED BELIEFS AND IDEAS.

    lol

    what?

    not that it matters, and i'm not posting any pics, but i was born a girl

    i don't respond to your post because you type in CAPS and your post at times are nonsensical

    for instance, i'm not totally sure what you mean by "unexperienced beliefs and ideas"

    english is not your first language so its understandable

    most importantly i don't take you seriously when you make claims such as:
    Whats happenning in the IC is a exemple of whats happening in the physical world of black people: the push for the black american effeminization aka psycholocal sterelizatìon by the supremacist side of white people is ongoing.
  • LcnsdbyROYALTY
    LcnsdbyROYALTY Members Posts: 13,763 ✭✭✭✭✭


    These muthafuckas on Twitter can ? themselves!!! A transexual woman IS *clap* STILL *clap* A MUTHAFUCKIN *clap* MAN *clap*

    The only thing I will somewhat agree on is that they SHOULDN'T be able to trick anybody cuz they STILL look like a MUTHAFUCKIN MAN!

    This stupid ? or ? in that tweeet need to educate ITSELF on the XY Chromosome.

    Any ? that gets tricked deserves a free pair of prescription eyeglasses when they hit tha bing for life for being dumb as ? . Duck ass ? .

    I know it's ? on the IC that think otherwise. Yall not being politically correct. Yall are ? . Own up to that ? .

    Like my ? @BOSSExcellence would say...





















































    LESBIANS!!!!

    only women clap inbetween words bruh....

    just saying


    you lesbian

    Foh Pralims, I was mocking the tweet that you just quoted
  • Madame_CJSkywalker
    Madame_CJSkywalker Members Posts: 940 ✭✭✭✭
    LordZuko wrote: »
    Children don't have an innate fear of fire. It's not until they are burnt maybe more than once that children learn "fire hot"

    Most things are socially learned because human beings are *gasp* social creatures. This doesn't mean that something isn't natural.

    To make another comparison, there are people who adopt exotic pets, this animal learns to be sociable around people. Now this animal's natural environment can be a forest, jungle, swamp whatever. However most times when that owner wants to get rid of that pet, there can't just go to a forest or nearest wilderness and just live. The social learning of that animal has more often than not made it incompatible to it's natural environment. Animals are taught how to exist in their environment by their parents.

    The nature vs nurture argument when it comes to the "rightness" of people's reactions towards outside groups is circular logic. Morality is not universal but shaped by the needs of society. The reason that we, and predominantly through feminine influence, are being pushed towards the acceptance of a nonsensical spectrum of sexuality and gender expression is because there are influential white ? abound with enough money and political pull.


    yes behaviors are indeed learned, either from interacting with the world or by being taught

    innate behaviors, however, refer to a behavior that comes from your genes, like when a baby cries coming out the ? ...

    of course we don't know from the ? that fire is hot... but our response when we touch fire, which is to recoil in pain, is an innate reflex. newborns instinctively suck on a nipple that is placed in their mouth is another example

    evolution ...etc...etc...etc

    is the aversion to homosexuality is a product of natural selection or a culturally constructed, transmitted bias that is up for debate. think it's both

    that said, all i'm arguing is that we are more than just animals. few of behaviors are innate. reaction to certain stimulus are influenced by many factors and are malleable not always hard wired

    i think we should do our part to modify /unlearn certain anti social behaviors and responses to become more of an inclusive society verses just chalking everything up to nature and giving in our natural instinct which is to exclude ppl we may consider "other"

    the benefits of becoming a more inclusive society are obvious. human capital for one
  • Madame_CJSkywalker
    Madame_CJSkywalker Members Posts: 940 ✭✭✭✭
    can we agree that a lot of our reactions to ? ppl or whatever stimuli whether the reaction be violent, negative, apathetic, positive, etc has a lot to do with our surroundings, social conditioning, experiences, etc

    it's not just innate

    the way we interact with others is far from innate in this day and age

    even our personalities aren't just hardwired

    and again I'd argue that the strong aversion to homosexuality stems from religious and patriarchal ideologies and institutions

    that and I do believe we have a natural unease around anyone we consider out the norm or "other" for evolutionary reasons

    I don't think anyone would argue that our surroundings and environment play some part in our reactions. We think you're overstating how those surroundings are responsible as opposed to our own innate feelings and preconceptions. Yes, as human beings we all are capable of changing over time That doesn't mean that feelings we have will change or that they aren't real.

    nah

    conversely i think you are down playing the impact that religious and other cultural institutions have on the way we behave and interact with the world around us

    if from a young child you are fed anti-? messages on a daily basis considering how impressionable the human mind is, it is bound to influence the way you view and interact with ? ppl

    it's bound to heighten or and dampen feelings that may have already been there

    same as with any other messaging

    it is no coincidence ? marriage is becoming more acceptable, especially with young generations, there's been a noticeable shift in the message as of late

    same with the way men and women interact. certain behaviors that was tolerated and accepted centuries ago are now frowned upon

    and i'm not saying everybody should just be cool with the ? to the point where you are letting other ? sit on your lap all ? nilly, i'm concerned with the overt and oppressive anti trans/? ?

    and i would support a law that would penalize non disclosure from a trans person by putting that person on a sex offender list ...though i doubt most ppl would even report it to the police due to being embarrassed or ashamed
  • The Lonious Monk
    The Lonious Monk Members Posts: 26,258 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2017
    can we agree that a lot of our reactions to ? ppl or whatever stimuli whether the reaction be violent, negative, apathetic, positive, etc has a lot to do with our surroundings, social conditioning, experiences, etc

    it's not just innate

    the way we interact with others is far from innate in this day and age

    even our personalities aren't just hardwired

    and again I'd argue that the strong aversion to homosexuality stems from religious and patriarchal ideologies and institutions

    that and I do believe we have a natural unease around anyone we consider out the norm or "other" for evolutionary reasons

    I don't think anyone would argue that our surroundings and environment play some part in our reactions. We think you're overstating how those surroundings are responsible as opposed to our own innate feelings and preconceptions. Yes, as human beings we all are capable of changing over time That doesn't mean that feelings we have will change or that they aren't real.

    nah

    conversely i think you are down playing the impact that religious and other cultural institutions have on the way we behave and interact with the world around us

    if from a young child you are fed anti-? messages on a daily basis considering how impressionable the human mind is, it is bound to influence the way you view and interact with ? ppl

    it's bound to heighten or and dampen feelings that may have already been there

    same as with any other messaging

    it is no coincidence ? marriage is becoming more acceptable, especially with young generations, there's been a noticeable shift in the message as of late

    same with the way men and women interact. certain behaviors that was tolerated and accepted centuries ago are now frowned upon

    and i'm not saying everybody should just be cool with the ? to the point where you are letting other ? sit on your lap all ? nilly, i'm concerned with the overt and oppressive anti trans/? ?

    and i would support a law that would penalize non disclosure from a trans person by putting that person on a sex offender list ...though i doubt most ppl would even report it to the police due to being embarrassed or ashamed

    I was going to argue more, but if you're sincere about the bold, that should be enough common ground for everyone on this matter.
  • Trollio
    Trollio Members Posts: 25,815 ✭✭✭✭✭
    texas409 wrote: »
    Trollio wrote: »
    texas409 wrote: »
    EmM HoLLa. wrote: »
    I don't give a damn what u change too.. If you are born a man.. You're a man to me.. If you're born a woman you're a woman to me.. Period.. End of discussion..

    its a damn shame that this needs to be said in 2017.

    Why wasnt it said back when you got that ? number?

    You ungreatful internet ? . I was on my lil duvall ? way before lil duval said ? . I exposed the ? for who and what it was and all y'all did was make corny jokes accusing me of smashing SMH. You ? should be thanking me I took that L so one of you ? wouldn't be doing a life sentence for murder

    ? u had documented phone convos with said ? and recieved pics.


    You did that for yourself
  • texas409
    texas409 Members Posts: 20,854 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Trollio wrote: »
    texas409 wrote: »
    Trollio wrote: »
    texas409 wrote: »
    EmM HoLLa. wrote: »
    I don't give a damn what u change too.. If you are born a man.. You're a man to me.. If you're born a woman you're a woman to me.. Period.. End of discussion..

    its a damn shame that this needs to be said in 2017.

    Why wasnt it said back when you got that ? number?

    You ungreatful internet ? . I was on my lil duvall ? way before lil duval said ? . I exposed the ? for who and what it was and all y'all did was make corny jokes accusing me of smashing SMH. You ? should be thanking me I took that L so one of you ? wouldn't be doing a life sentence for murder

    ? u had documented phone convos with said ? and recieved pics.


    You did that for yourself

    The pics it sent me was of a female that it claimed was it's cousin not once did I get pics of a male. Let the shenanigans cease
  • The Lonious Monk
    The Lonious Monk Members Posts: 26,258 ✭✭✭✭✭
    5th Letter wrote: »
    The Lonious Monk and Madame CJ are the two most argumentative posters on the IC. Y'all going around in circles saying the same ? .

    In this case you're right. We were just arguing in circles.
  • stringer bell
    stringer bell Members Posts: 26,212 ✭✭✭✭✭
    http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/analysis-how-toxic-masculinity-fuels-transgender-victimization-n789621
    Analysis: How ‘Toxic Masculinity’ Fuels Transgender Victimization

    by Alex BergAug 4

    In the wake of President Donald Trump’s surprising announcement on Twitter that he was banning transgender people from the military, many comedians roasted the president for his decision. On the popular morning radio show “The Breakfast Club,” however, standup comic Lil Duval took a position where he appeared to have more in common with Christian conservatives peddling anti-transgender bathroom bills than his fellow funnymen.

    During an appearance one week ago on the nationally syndicated show, following a question about the trans military ban, DJ Envy, one of the program’s three co-hosts, asked Duval what he’d do if he found out a woman he had a relationship with was transgender.

    "This might sound messed up, and I don’t care. She dying. I can’t deal with that,” Duval responded. When pressed by co-host Charlamagne Tha ? that “you can’t go around killing transgenders,” he went one step further. “If one did that to me and they didn’t tell me, I’m going to be so mad I’m probably going to want to ? them,” he said.

    Days earlier, activist and author Janet Mock had appeared on “The Breakfast Club” to discuss her second memoir, “Surpassing Certainty.” During the exchange with Duval, DJ Envy held up a copy of the book, with Mock’s portrait on the cover, as Charlamagne asked, “Tell me she ain’t pretty.” “Nope,” Duval responded. “That n**** doing his thing….ain’t finna get me.”

    In a year that is stacking up to be among the most deadly for transgender people in the U.S., Duval’s comments rang of the “panic defense” used in court by those who ? LGBTQ people to justify their violence. As states introduce legislation to push trans people out of public life, the remarks resembled the rhetoric employed by the Christian right to cut off trans people’s access to bathrooms. And, for their part, DJ Envy and Charlamagne demonstrated how the media “cosigns” transphobia when they allow these narratives to go unchecked, according to Ashlee Marie Preston, the editor in chief of Wear Your Voice.

    During the conversation, Charlamagne agreed with Duval that there should be “repercussions” for transgender women who don’t come out to their partners. “[The comments] reinforced the criminalization of transgender women by communicating the lie that we're all deceptive sexual predators who trick men into having sex with us,” Preston said.

    While “The Breakfast Club” has discussed racial justice and the Black Lives Matter movement, “they are discussing it as though black issues and trans issues are two different things,” Angelica Ross, the founder of TransTech Social Enterprises and an actor on TNT’s “Claws,” said. Just this past weekend, Preston was joined by Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors in interrupting a Politicon interview with Charlamagne.

    A spokesperson for iHeartMedia, the syndicated program’s parent company, said “The Breakfast Club does not condone” the comments made by Lil Duval, referring to them as “thoughtless and insensitive.”

    “The Breakfast Club has always been supportive of the LGBTQ community,” iHeartMedia’s Angel Aristone told NBC News via email earlier this week, and “did push back during the interview letting Duval know what he said was unacceptable."


    So far in 2017, 16 transgender people have been murdered and 13 of them were Black trans women, according to LaLa Zannell, the lead organizer at the New York City Anti-Violence Project. “Transgender people, and especially trans women of color, are impacted by violence at every angle,” Zannell said.

    The “trans panic” defense, invoked by Duval, has been used in court to justify the murders of transgender people. It’s a “justification of why a man would react to trans women in a violent manner in that it’s a defense that basically victimizes men. ‘Oh, I’m so shocked because I didn’t know that this person was transgender.’ It takes the humanity away from the transgender person,” Preston said.

    When Islan Nettles, a 21 year-old transgender woman, died after being attacked in 2013, her attacker said he went after her when his friends made fun of him for flirting with a trans woman. “I just didn’t want to be fooled,” James Dixon told detectives, as reported by the New York Times.

    At the state level, Texas is attempting to pass a “bathroom ban,” and Alaska and Massachusetts have upcoming ballot initiatives “to take away laws that ensure equal treatment for trans people in public spaces,” Raffi Freedman-Gurspan, the director of external relations at the National Center for Transgender Equality, said.

    State Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, a Republican who introduced Texas’ bill requiring people to use the bathroom listed on their birth certificate, told the Texas Tribune that it "shuts down the opportunity for predators and voyeurs to assault women.” Similarly, fundamentalist Christians have fought against LGBTQ anti-discrimination ordinances by arguing that “males with past child predator convictions that claim they are female,” promulgating the same fallacy as Duval that transgender people are “deceptive sexual predators,” in Preston’s words.

    In the days since the appearance, Duval has refused to apologize for the remarks. Backlash has mounted on social media, with the trending hashtag #TransFolksAreNotJokes and a campaign to boycott the show. Mock responded with an essay in Allure about how “The Breakfast Club” used her as a prop. “Part of what is dangerous is that when we hear folks like Lil’ Duval being transphobic, it makes it seem okay for others, and can influence other people’s perceptions,” Zannell said.

    The media and Hollywood have been perpetuating these ideas about transgender people as far back as 100 years ago, before even the word "transgender" existed. In 1917, for example, silent film actor Fatty Arbuckle was on film “ogling women in the restroom while he’s disguised in a dress and wig,” Sam Feder, the director of the forthcoming documentary “Disclosure: Trans Lives On Screen,” said in an email.

    Recent movies, too, have used transgender people as the butt of a joke. In the “Hangover II,” one of the characters is disgusted when he finds out a woman he hooked up with is trans, according to Preston. “This trope both fuels, and is fueled by, straight male anxiety. This trope, and its underlying assumption that trans women are really predatory men in disguise, justifies violence against trans women,” Jen Richards, a writer and actor, said.


    u9mez_zpsjpocbnu5.gif

    pc3p4q3zckek.gif