LGBTTQQAAIP - Gavin McInnes Breaks Down the Gay Cryptography

a reply to: ANNED

I am having trouble understanding this, please walk me through. What I am assuming at this point from your post is that some people are born with multiple organs, which makes them hermaphrodite?? And then the physician on staff makes a unilateral decision as to which organ stays and which goes? Thus, Intersex applies to those who were born hermaphrodite but had an arbitrary procedure by physician after birth, reducing them to a specific organ/sex ? Is my understanding correct, or am I way off base here?

a reply to: worldstarcountry

TL;DR.
Parents and doctors make decisions.
Kids say they are not the genders they were born with.

a reply to: Deaf Alien
So does this mean all hermaphrodites are intersex in gender?? I mean if that was the documented diagnosis, than I can understand being a bit more sympathetic. But that occurrence would be far less even than this trans phenomenon that has been all the rage for the second decade of this century.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

They used to decide the intersex babies back then.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Deaf Alien
So does this mean all hermaphrodites are intersex in gender?? I mean if that was the documented diagnosis, than I can understand being a bit more sympathetic. But that occurrence would be far less even than this trans phenomenon that has been all the rage for the second decade of this century.

Trans is just weird, mixed up people. Wonder how many regret forever how they have mutilated their bodies.

Just for the record, here in Russia we don't have this 'gay problem' on a personal level. Nobody really cares until it's a part of the Agenda (you know, those gay parades, legal issues, etc.).

As a human I actually sympathize with these people, because they face a lot of difficulties throughout their lives. No question about it.

BUT we strongly resist to accept this Agenda's promotion of the issue to represent these deviations as a norm.
This promotion has nothing to do with human rights, it has the intentions to divide people, to destroy the institution of marriage and family, etc.

So, it's OK to be gay, but it's NOT OK to sell it as a norm (or promote it).

I wish you all the best of luck with the resistance.

originally posted by: ANNED

Most intersex people want nothing to do with the LGBT community. Because they can not choose what doctors did to them.

Touche.

Then WHY lump them into the alphabet? Most of these extra letters refer to some form of gender IDENTITY, not sexual orientation. They are two different things.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Yes, that happens, but a bunch of people that didn't happen to use them as a shield the same way abortion advocates hide behind the very, very tiny percentage of rapes and incest to justify all the other abortions that have nothing at all to do with those things.

It's like 1% of a population that's already less than 1% of the population.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Personally, I was always more partial to referring to myself as a faggot. But that's just me.

The "gay community" is a joke. I find it difficult to limit myself to my sexuality, but it seems a lot of people thrive on it, referring to it as a "lifestyle".

It seems like an excuse for those poor, vapid souls with no personalities to band together and -- oh hell, I don't know what they do. Maybe they try to fundraise for HIV/AIDS research that never happens because it's not re--

That's a topic for another discussion. The point is that these identity politics do nothing for anyone except create the stereotypes that they try so hard to avoid.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ANNED

I get what you are saying but some intersex folks lend their understanding to us about the transgender folks.

There are a number of fake intersex transgender folks out there.

They believe if the claim intersex that they can pass as non trangender.

This is why some people that are intersex don't want any thing to do with LGBT community

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: ANNED

I am having trouble understanding this, please walk me through. What I am assuming at this point from your post is that some people are born with multiple organs, which makes them hermaphrodite?? And then the physician on staff makes a unilateral decision as to which organ stays and which goes? Thus, Intersex applies to those who were born hermaphrodite but had an arbitrary procedure by physician after birth, reducing them to a specific organ/sex ? Is my understanding correct, or am I way off base here?

you are close in some cases.

but there is no such thing as a complete true hermaphrodite.
en.wikipedia.org...
heatst.com...
www.theatlantic.com...

originally posted by: JedemDasSeine
Just for the record, here in Russia we don't have this 'gay problem' on a personal level. Nobody really cares until it's a part of the Agenda (you know, those gay parades, legal issues, etc.).

Ah yes...the infamous Gay Agenda! But we've already been told there are no gays in Russia!

a reply to: JedemDasSeine

This is a confusing post. "So, it's OK to be gay, but it's NOT OK to sell it as a norm (or promote it)" So it's ok to be gay, but not ok to say it's ok to be gay.

I've never heard a gay person say that being Gay is "The norm," (as in, the default state) but they've been fighting for 50 years to be treated like they're normal. There's a big difference between trying to be considered "Normal" and trying to be "The norm."

a reply to: Slanter
Since I'm not a native English speaker, I should make a remark.

Maybe the term "norm" was not the best there, I should've used either a "standard" or a ''model" instead. Since a standard is "an approved model" and a model is "a standard or example for imitation or comparison".

My thought is simple: a deviation must NOT be promoted as an example for imitation, esp. to children.

a reply to: ColdWisdom
Starting to feel bad for you all...
My gay best friend jokes about going back into the closet for some peace and quiet.
Once a group has become socially accepted these SJW's have to find a new acronym to attach to the stupid liberal word salad they have created. If this continues it will be easier to just label the people that don't fall under the LGBTTQQAAIPFU protective umbrella.
Make things much easier and less confusing with just 2 labels.
#1 White CIS devil
#2 Everyone else
That is after all what these groups are asking for...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I have to be honest here.

When people say, "LGBTQ" etc. . . . I think of BLT's.

Sorry.

Your post reminds me of this:



Skip to 2:28 for the BLT reference.

a reply to: JAY1980

That's exactly what this is. Us LGB folk are now for the most part just another patch in the quilt of everyday society. And for that I am grateful.

I know that all I personally really care about nowadays is mundane stuff. Like going to work, feeding the cat, mowing the lawn and saying hi to my (straight) neighbors.

But the Gender identity bunch are going fully rogue on us now. I mean I'm sympathetic to them, but how many intersex people are there? I presume they mean hermaphrodites that has their pennies lopped off at a very young age only to discover they actually grew up as a male by intersex. I didn't think Doctors even did that any more because they have learned is not a good thing for the person.

I have a new proposal the the SJWs. Can we just rename the movement LGBTS? S is for sundry as in whatever you decide today's micro cause is. Maybe you'd like to address bloke who thinks he is a giraffe



I mean HOW is someone who thinks they are a giraffe supposed to contribute to a functioning human society?

Or perhaps you'd like to add another T for tree-sexual for all those hippies who want to marry the trees they love so much?

/end annoyed rant at loony leftist groups.

For thousands of years we had the word "queer" to describe or explain mentally ill people. Now they're "gay". Which used to mean "happy". Who can argue with that anyone being "gay"? This is what happens when the queer and mentally ill, get tread (good rubber) on the inroads of "social policy".

It's mental, moral and natural confusion. Seen a lot said on here regarding a/The Book... Most of us know who "the author of confusion" is...

originally posted by: Slanter
a reply to: JedemDasSeine

This is a confusing post. "So, it's OK to be gay, but it's NOT OK to sell it as a norm (or promote it)" So it's ok to be gay, but not ok to say it's ok to be gay.

I've never heard a gay person say that being Gay is "The norm," (as in, the default state) but they've been fighting for 50 years to be treated like they're normal. There's a big difference between trying to be considered "Normal" and trying to be "The norm."

This is a confusing reply. "They've been fighting for 50 years to be treated like they're normal." So they want to be treated normal, but also want to be seen as a specific demographic with their own call sign (LGBTTQQAAIP) that points out they are not normal.

Quid pro quo

The gay people I know don't define themselves as gay. They are people I work and socialize with, and we talk about their sexual preferences about as much as I talk about mine. Which is to say, hardly at all. Maybe we could stop pointing out our differences as something that matters, and instead look at what we have in common?

I find it hilarious, that the biggest promotion of "tolerance" and "anti-this" and "that". Comes from people that can't "tolerate", the fact they either have it, or they don't. Then convince themselves they do! That sounds like a mental issue to any sane, man or woman. If they ain't got it they're this. If they have that, they're, THAT. It's preety simple. Why do we coddle such mental weaknesses?