🧵 1/ If Steve Godfrey has randomly posted his dossier/head cannon on me under your comment. These are the facts of it broken down:

Most online ideology, including yours, is just made-up nonsense assembled thirty seconds before posting. It's not a worldview. It's a collection of excuses duct-taped together by people too lazy to examine their beliefs and too arrogant to realize they don't have any. Go fuck yourself.

Fuck off, Rowling. Every time there's a crime, allegation, controversy, or public dispute involving a trans person, you descend on it like a vulture that found a fresh corpse. A normal person sees an allegation and asks, "What happened?" You see an allegation and immediately start auditioning for the role of Professional Victimhood Entrepreneur. It's the same tired routine every fucking time. One trans person gets ACCUSED, NOT PROVEN and convicted, ACCUSED of something and suddenly you're acting like you've uncovered evidence against millions of people. That's not skepticism. That's not concern for women. That's not intellectual honesty. It's prejudice with a publishing deal. The truly embarrassing part is that you've become completely incapable of distinguishing an individual from a group. If a "regular" woman assaults someone, you don't blame all women. If a white person commits a crime, you don't blame all white people. But when a trans person is involved, your brain immediately starts foaming at the mouth and constructing another post about how your personal obsession has been vindicated. You have spent so many years marinating in your own outrage that you've become a one-woman moral panic factory. Every story. Every headline. Every accusation. Every lawsuit. The exact same script. The woman who wrote seven books about people irrationally fearing and persecuting a small minority somehow turned into the fucking Ministry of Magic. It's honestly astonishing. At this point you're less an author and more a retiree screaming at clouds on a billion-dollar budget. If an assault occurred, investigate it. If officials failed to act, investigate them. If someone committed a crime, prosecute them. But watching you use every incident involving a trans person as another opportunity to push your fixation is getting sad. You don't come across as brave. You don't come across as principled. You come across as someone who has been trapped in the same angry loop for years and can't fucking escape it. The world kept moving. You didn't. That's why every time you speak now, you sound less like a concerned advocate and more like a conspiracy theorist desperately hunting for the next scrap of evidence to feed an obsession. Go fuck yourself, you lonely old bag. -Joy

Please always swallow: "Just don't have sex" is always such a fascinating argument because nobody applies that standard consistently. Don't want to risk an STI? Never have sex. Don't want a car accident? Never drive. Don't want food poisoning? Never eat out. Don't want a sports injury? Never play sports. Humans don't eliminate every activity that carries risk. We manage risk and deal with outcomes when they occur. That's what adults do. And let's talk about "personal responsibility." If someone gets pregnant and chooses to continue the pregnancy, that's a responsibility. If someone gets pregnant and chooses abortion, that's also taking responsibility for the situation in accordance with their own values. You don't get to redefine "responsibility" as "the specific outcome I personally prefer." The really bizarre part is the obsession with sex itself. People act as though sex exists solely for reproduction when the overwhelming majority of sexual encounters never produce a child and are engaged in for bonding, intimacy, pleasure, stress relief, relationship maintenance, or simply because human beings are biologically wired to enjoy it. "Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy" is also nonsense. Consent to an activity is consent to participating in that activity. It is not consent to every possible outcome and it certainly isn't a lifelong waiver of bodily autonomy. If I consent to driving, I haven't consented to being forced to remain trapped in a wrecked vehicle because I "accepted the risk" of crashing. Risk acknowledgment is not an obligation to endure every consequence without intervention. The funniest part is that many of the same people screaming "personal responsibility" would lose their minds if you told them the truly responsible thing to do after an unwanted pregnancy is to terminate it before a conscious, feeling person ever exists and before decades of potential suffering are imposed on both parent and child. Apparently "personal responsibility" only counts when it produces the answer they wanted beforehand. What they're really arguing isn't responsibility. It's punishment. And punishment has always been the point.

Such a retaded argument: This argument only works if you define "sex" as chromosomes and then pretend chromosomes are the only sex trait that matters. They're not. Medical transition can alter hormone profiles, secondary sex characteristics, fat distribution, muscle mass, skin texture, body hair patterns, breast development, gonadal function, fertility, genital anatomy, and numerous physiological characteristics. In other words, it changes a huge number of traits that biologists actually use when describing sexual phenotype. The reason this debate never goes anywhere is because people use the word "sex" in two completely different ways. If by sex you mean chromosomal makeup, then no, transition doesn't change chromosomes. If by sex you mean the collection of biological traits that make up an individual's sexual phenotype, then transition absolutely changes many of them. That's why a trans woman on estrogen for years doesn't look, sound, smell, or function physiologically the same way as an untreated male. Reality stubbornly refuses to consult Twitter definitions. The funny part is that detransitioners often prove the point themselves. Many spend years discussing how hormones changed their bodies, voices, fat distribution, hair, sexual function, emotions, appearance, and social perception. Then they'll turn around and say, "Nothing changed." Something clearly changed. The entire reason detransition is a thing is because transition produced substantial physical changes in the first place.

Retarded nonsense: This argument falls apart almost immediately. Adults are allowed to do all sorts of things to their bodies that carry risk. They can drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, skydive, get tattoos, undergo elective cosmetic surgery, have sterilization procedures, donate organs, get body piercings, engage in combat sports, and refuse medical treatment altogether. The standard has never been "adults may only make perfectly safe decisions." The standard is whether a competent adult has informed consent and whether the intervention's risks are considered acceptable. Also, "we don't allow adults to cut off healthy body parts" is just factually false. People undergo elective mastectomies, hysterectomies, sterilization procedures, wisdom tooth extractions, cosmetic surgeries, and amputations in rare cases involving severe chronic conditions. Medicine has never operated on the principle that healthy tissue can never be removed. What's really happening here is that you've started with the conclusion that gender-related care is illegitimate and are working backwards to invent a principle that would ban it. The problem is that your principle immediately collides with dozens of medical procedures society already permits.

The funny part is that she's accidentally making the argument for age restrictions while trying to oppose them. "Parents can protect their kids." Can they? Because if your son is 14 and has a smartphone, there's a very good chance he's already seen pornography, regardless of what rules you've established. The average parent has nowhere near the technical knowledge, time, or oversight required to monitor everything a teenager does online. Parents have been losing the war against teenage curiosity since the invention of teenagers. That doesn't automatically mean government age verification is a good idea. Privacy concerns are real. But pretending parents are perfectly capable of controlling what their kids see online is pure fantasy. Most adults can barely reset their Wi-Fi router. They're not outsmarting a determined teenager with internet access.

Completely retarded this creature is pretending one criminal somehow settles a question about millions of people. A registered sex offender exposing himself is evidence that a sex offender exposed himself. That's it. It tells you exactly nothing about whether trans women exist any more than a male sex offender tells us all men are predators. Notice the bait-and-switch. You started with 'Is this a woman?' and ended with 'This person committed a crime.' Those are two completely different claims. Criminality isn't a sex characteristic. If it were, prisons would be a biological category. Also, if someone can legally change their sex marker and then commit a crime, the problem is the crime. We don't revoke everyone else's rights because one offender abused a system. By that logic, every driver's license should be abolished because some people use them before committing robberies. The funniest part is that you people spend years insisting trans women are secretly dangerous men, then when an actual sex offender shows up, your evidence is still just 'look, a sex offender committed a sex offense.' Congratulations. You've successfully proven that criminals commit crimes. The case remains closed.

Hey retard, This is such a bizarre victim fantasy. Bill C-16 didn't redefine "woman." It added gender identity and gender expression to existing human rights and hate crime legislation. Nobody was arrested for knowing what a woman is. Nobody was jailed for possessing chromosomes. The apocalypse you're describing never happened. What's especially funny is the claim that women are being denied equal rights and respect. Which rights, specifically? Voting? Employment? Property ownership? Access to education? Healthcare? Freedom of speech? You live in a country where women have full legal equality, yet you're presenting yourself as an oppressed dissident because trans people also have legal protections. And the "biologically determined at conception" line doesn't even address the issue being debated. The question isn't whether biological sex exists. Almost nobody disputes that. The question is whether trans people should be able to live their lives without discrimination. Notice how the conversation always starts with "sex is real" and somehow ends with demands to exclude, restrict, or stigmatize a tiny minority of people. Also, claiming "females know what a woman is" is not an argument. It's just a slogan. Plenty of women disagree with you. Plenty of biologists disagree with your simplistic framing. Plenty of legal scholars disagree with you. Repeating "I know what a woman is" over and over isn't evidence. It's just the intellectual equivalent of hitting the elevator button repeatedly because you think it makes the elevator arrive faster.

No, you have to accept the consequences of your choices. If someone gets pregnant and decides to continue the pregnancy, that's their consequence to live with. If someone gets pregnant and decides to terminate the pregnancy, that's also their consequence to live with. What you don't get to do is volunteer other people's bodies, health, time, money, and futures for a consequence you personally won't bear. It's always funny how "accept the consequences" somehow translates into "do what I want you to do afterward." If I break my leg skiing, accepting the consequences doesn't mean refusing medical treatment. If I crash my car, accepting the consequences doesn't mean leaving it in a ditch. Dealing with a problem is accepting the consequences. The consequence of pregnancy is pregnancy. The response to pregnancy is a separate decision.

Your parents named you tijmen...pretty sure its genetic

and this one does 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️

Comparing transition care to chopping off a healthy leg is a perfect example of arguing by analogy instead of evidence. A person seeking amputation because they believe a healthy limb doesn't belong to them is generally experiencing a condition that impairs function and is treated in an extremely rare and controversial way. A trans person seeking transition is pursuing a treatment approach supported by major medical organizations because, for many patients, it reduces distress and improves quality of life. Those are not remotely the same thing. Also, notice the sleight of hand. Ari said 0.4% of people wanting to alter their sex shouldn't be shocking. Mia responded by swapping "alter their sex" with "chop off a healthy leg." That's not an argument. It's an attempt to smuggle disgust into the conversation and hope nobody notices the substitution. If your position is strong, defend it directly. Explain why transition care is ineffective, harmful, or unjustified. Don't replace it with a completely different medical scenario and pretend you've made a point. Humans alter healthy bodies all the time. Cosmetic surgery, orthodontics, sterilization, tattoos, piercings, vasectomies, breast augmentation, breast reduction, laser eye surgery. Society doesn't suddenly panic every time someone changes a healthy body part. The actual question isn't whether a body part is healthy. The question is whether the intervention leaves the person better off than they were before. That's the debate. Everything else is emotional theater.

Too fucking stupid: No, that's just a lazy teleological argument dressed up as wisdom. The purpose of a thing depends on whose purpose you're talking about. The biological function of eating is nutrition. That doesn't mean every meal is consumed for nutrition. People eat for pleasure, culture, social bonding, stress relief, bodybuilding, religious observance, and a hundred other reasons. The biological function of legs is locomotion. Yet people use them to dance, kick soccer balls, climb mountains, and sit with them propped on a coffee table while arguing on the internet. Likewise, sex has several evolved functions and effects. Human beings engage in it for intimacy, bonding, pleasure, emotional connection, stress reduction, recreation, and, sometimes, reproduction. The existence of contraception alone should have tipped you off to the fact that most people understand this perfectly well. The funniest part is that your own examples undermine your argument. The purpose of driving isn't to crash, but crashing is a foreseeable risk of driving. The purpose of eating isn't to be poisoned, but food poisoning is a foreseeable risk of eating. The purpose of leaving your house isn't to be assaulted, but assault is a foreseeable risk of interacting with other people. Exactly. A risk is not the same thing as a purpose. Pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex. That does not magically transform the purpose of every act of sex into reproduction any more than a car accident becomes the purpose of driving because it can happen. You're trying to smuggle a moral conclusion into a biological observation: "Sex can cause pregnancy." True. Therefore: "Anyone who has sex is consenting to pregnancy and forfeits the right to make decisions about their own body." Not true. That's the part you will never actually prove. You'll just hope nobody notices the leap. Human beings invented contraception, abortion, fertility treatments, vasectomies, condoms, birth control pills, and IVF precisely because we don't treat reproduction as the sole purpose of sex. We've spent centuries developing technology to separate sex from reproduction whenever people want to. It's remarkable how often these arguments collapse the moment you ask a simple question: If the purpose of sex is creating children, why do millions of infertile couples, post-menopausal women, sterilized people, and same-sex couples continue having sex? The answer is obvious to everyone except people desperately trying to turn a biological capability into a moral obligation. Human beings are complicated creatures. They built particle accelerators, wrote symphonies, split the atom, and somehow still produce tweets that wouldn't survive a five-minute conversation.

Chris has 14 days to sue me or its true

Billboard Chris has sex with his own kids

Absolutely retarded. "Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy" is one of those slogans people repeat because it sounds profound until you think about it for more than six seconds. Consent to driving isn't consent to dying in a car crash. Consent to eating isn't consent to food poisoning. Consent to leaving your house isn't consent to being assaulted. Acknowledging a risk exists is not the same thing as agreeing to every possible consequence without recourse. And calling pregnancy an "inconvenience" is a cute bit of rhetoric considering it involves major physiological changes, medical risks, permanent bodily effects, pain, disability, and occasionally death. It's remarkable how quickly some people go from "protect innocent life" to "women lose bodily autonomy the moment sperm shows up" without noticing the contradiction. It truly is a shame you weren't aborted

It's always funny when people start with "we should be compassionate" and then immediately spend the rest of the paragraph describing millions of people as delusional idiots incapable of understanding their own lives. Your theory also requires believing that doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, endocrinologists, researchers, and every major medical organization have all been duped by a political conspiracy, while random guys named "theregularloser" on Twitter have cracked the case. That's a level of self-confidence usually associated with head injuries. You haven't presented evidence. You've presented a fan fiction where everyone you disagree with is either lying or brainwashed, and somehow you're the lone genius standing between civilization and catastrophe. The fact that you can type that with a straight face is honestly impressive.

Professor, comparing a trans woman to someone claiming to be Napoleon is the kind of analogy people make when they've run out of arguments and are hoping nobody notices. Napoleon was a specific historical individual. "Woman" is a social and biological category containing billions of people. One claim is "I am literally a dead French emperor." The other is "I belong to this social category and live my life accordingly." Those aren't remotely comparable. Also, "whatever that means" is doing an incredible amount of work here. If you're going to spend years talking about trans people, eventually you have to grapple with what gender identity actually is instead of pretending confusion is an argument. A philosophy professor saying "whatever that means" about the central concept under discussion is roughly equivalent to a physics professor responding to quantum mechanics with "tiny magic, I guess." It's not a rebuttal. It's an admission that you've stopped analyzing the subject. Probably becuse you're retarded

Just a reminder Billboard Chris has sex with children

These people are sick fucks: This is one of the most dishonest forms of sentimentality on this website. An extra chromosome isn't "like bangs or dimples." It's associated with intellectual disability, congenital heart defects, increased risk of leukemia, thyroid disorders, hearing problems, early-onset Alzheimer's, and lifelong dependence in many cases. You can believe people with Down syndrome deserve love, dignity, and protection without pretending a genetic disorder is a quirky personality trait. Reducing a serious medical condition to a "cute little accessory" doesn't demonstrate compassion. It demonstrates that you're more interested in feeling good than speaking honestly. The video is doing all the work here. If Down syndrome were truly equivalent to dimples, nobody would object to receiving the diagnosis themselves. Funny how that conversation never happens.