Tranny Defends Exposing Penis In Women's Locker Room: Free Speech/Protests "Locked Down".

Should conversations about women's distress of males in their changing areas be suppressed?

  • Yes, women of all walks are going to have to get used to it.

  • No, women rape victims especially must be heard on the topic.

  • Not sure. I'm still unclear on what makes a male a male and a female a female.


Results are only viewable after voting.
There's a new hand over your mouth ladies..and his name is Always-Autumn

(*mine) Trans Woman Declares She’s No Longer ‘Ashamed’ to Expose Penis in Women’s Locker Room

"While countless girls walk around the locker room naked, I felt like I couldn't... because I have a penis."...*he found it difficult to expose *himself in female company. At least until this weekend, when *he "finally said 'fuck it,'" and, to the "disapproving looks" of ** women, undressed in the middle of the locker room, *his male genitalia exposed, and "walked naked to the shower."

..."I live in Manhattan and work out at a gym in Soho, so I figured that this is as safe a place as any to push the envelope."..

..Some critics even tried to steer the conversation into taking into account the feelings of women traumatized by male abuse. How would a woman who suffered through sexual harassment feel upon seeing Always-Autumn naked in a locker room? How would a female rape victim feel?

But this criticism, like all others, has been shut down."...
Eventually, the subreddit's moderators deleted all responses critical of Always-Autumn, given the group's guidelines that prohibit " stirring the post." The thread has later been locked altogether.


The article refers to the man as "she" and "her" which is terrible journalism. Some people 'even' tried to take into account the feelings of women rape victims? Really? Wow, what an edgy concept. You've come a long way baby..

Imagine a site for debate locking down a thread where women are complaining that they must undress in front of a man and enduring him naked in the WOMEN'S locker room? What website nazis would do such a thing to drown the cries of distressed women? They could've covertly squelched the cries of protest by just dungeoning the conversation; ie: soft-banning any protests of women rape victims and their defenders.
If you want to produce an egalitarian Orwellian society...which is what the left wants...then blurr gender roles.
 
There's a new hand over your mouth ladies..and his name is Always-Autumn

(*mine) Trans Woman Declares She’s No Longer ‘Ashamed’ to Expose Penis in Women’s Locker Room

"While countless girls walk around the locker room naked, I felt like I couldn't... because I have a penis."...*he found it difficult to expose *himself in female company. At least until this weekend, when *he "finally said 'fuck it,'" and, to the "disapproving looks" of ** women, undressed in the middle of the locker room, *his male genitalia exposed, and "walked naked to the shower."

..."I live in Manhattan and work out at a gym in Soho, so I figured that this is as safe a place as any to push the envelope."..

..Some critics even tried to steer the conversation into taking into account the feelings of women traumatized by male abuse. How would a woman who suffered through sexual harassment feel upon seeing Always-Autumn naked in a locker room? How would a female rape victim feel?

But this criticism, like all others, has been shut down."...
Eventually, the subreddit's moderators deleted all responses critical of Always-Autumn, given the group's guidelines that prohibit " stirring the post." The thread has later been locked altogether.


The article refers to the man as "she" and "her" which is terrible journalism. Some people 'even' tried to take into account the feelings of women rape victims? Really? Wow, what an edgy concept. You've come a long way baby..

Imagine a site for debate locking down a thread where women are complaining that they must undress in front of a man and enduring him naked in the WOMEN'S locker room? What website nazis would do such a thing to drown the cries of distressed women? They could've covertly squelched the cries of protest by just dungeoning the conversation; ie: soft-banning any protests of women rape victims and their defenders.
If you want to produce an egalitarian Orwellian society...which is what the left wants...then blurr gender roles.
Gender ROLES have already been blurred. Now they're just working to eradicate females.
 
If you want to produce an egalitarian Orwellian society...which is what the left wants...then blurr gender roles.
Gender ROLES have already been blurred. Now they're just working to eradicate females.

Actually what the trannies are up to is over-emphasizing old female stereotypes, often adopting names like...well...like "Always Autumn" and dressing like 1970s super hooker skanks at the docks when the sailors come home on shore leave. This is more ridicule. Real women are an entire spectrum of roles. Trannies seem exclusively stuck on extremely caked up fishnet porn star "women" looks; along with names to match.
 
Of course he's a pervert. He's using the leftist fiction that biological gender is a state of mind. Women have a penis. Therefore exposing his penis to women is no different than any woman exposing her mons.
"Pushing the envelope" in a fucking woman's locker room.

Since when does waving your dick around in a group of people constitute anything but mental illness?
I can't wait to see how the new SCOTUS writes the opinion on the final word on males exposing their junk in women-only locker rooms, showers etc. It's going to be a wincey topic but I'm sure they'll find the language to delicately suggest as a legal mandate that such men are indeed mentally ill. They're pushing the envelope all right. Right over the edge and into the Courthouse in DC.
 
Screen-Shot-2016-03-07-at-6.25.55-PM-695x400.png
 
I can't wait to see how the new SCOTUS writes the opinion on the final word on males exposing their junk in women-only locker rooms, showers etc. It's going to be a wincey topic but I'm sure they'll find the language to delicately suggest as a legal mandate that such men are indeed mentally ill. They're pushing the envelope all right. Right over the edge and into the Courthouse in DC.

Yawn, so upset you lost the gay argument, you just need someone to hate...

Kind of sad, really.
 
I can't wait to see how the new SCOTUS writes the opinion on the final word on males exposing their junk in women-only locker rooms, showers etc. It's going to be a wincey topic but I'm sure they'll find the language to delicately suggest as a legal mandate that such men are indeed mentally ill. They're pushing the envelope all right. Right over the edge and into the Courthouse in DC.

Yawn, so upset you lost the gay argument, you just need someone to hate...

Kind of sad, really.
There is no loss of the "gay argument", if you mean Obergefell. That case is fatally-flawed on about four different levels. All it would take for standing is for a state to deny gays a marriage license based on their own writing of marriage laws; citing Windsor 2013. Then Windsor would be pitted against Obergefell and Obergefell would lose. Since Obergefell did not seek to overturn Windsor, and the two cases' opinions are diametrically opposed on the issue of states having the final say on marriage definition, the conflict would be referred to the US Constitution to resolve either for the state or for the gay couple (polygamists?) seeking marriage there. If the new USSC finds that there is no language that overturns Windsor's 56-assertions that marriage definition is exclusively up to the states, Obergefell is defunct and the state would win the case.
 
Two people in the thread's poll said they're unclear on what male and female are. :lmao:

Don't go into the dog breeding business. It's hard to get a litter of pups from two bitches or two dogs.
 
If you have a penis you are a man.

....and....to cut it off doesn't count either....

Oh my the sickness......the sickness.................
 
There is no loss of the "gay argument", if you mean Obergefell. That case is fatally-flawed on about four different levels. All it would take for standing is for a state to deny gays a marriage license based on their own writing of marriage laws; citing Windsor 2013. Then Windsor would be pitted against Obergefell and Obergefell would lose. Since Obergefell did not seek to overturn Windsor, and the two cases' opinions are diametrically opposed on the issue of states having the final say on marriage definition, the conflict would be referred to the US Constitution to resolve either for the state or for the gay couple (polygamists?) seeking marriage there. If the new USSC finds that there is no language that overturns Windsor's 56-assertions that marriage definition is exclusively up to the states, Obergefell is defunct and the state would win the case.

Okay, guy, you keep working up fantasies like that, but really, the gay argument is over because Corporate America decided it is.

The reality, if any state actually TRIED to do what you said, they'd be subject to a corporate backlash.
 
Two people in the thread's poll said they're unclear on what male and female are. :lmao:

Don't go into the dog breeding business. It's hard to get a litter of pups from two bitches or two dogs.

Here's the funny thing... When a male dog humps another male dog, another dog doesn't run out with a book written 300 years ago (2000 in Dog years) and bark about how they are going to Hell for that.

upload_2018-10-24_5-5-40.jpeg


Nope, the stupidity that is homophobia is purely a human thing.
 
There's a new hand over your mouth ladies..and his name is Always-Autumn

(*mine) Trans Woman Declares She’s No Longer ‘Ashamed’ to Expose Penis in Women’s Locker Room

"While countless girls walk around the locker room naked, I felt like I couldn't... because I have a penis."...*he found it difficult to expose *himself in female company. At least until this weekend, when *he "finally said 'fuck it,'" and, to the "disapproving looks" of ** women, undressed in the middle of the locker room, *his male genitalia exposed, and "walked naked to the shower."

..."I live in Manhattan and work out at a gym in Soho, so I figured that this is as safe a place as any to push the envelope."..

..Some critics even tried to steer the conversation into taking into account the feelings of women traumatized by male abuse. How would a woman who suffered through sexual harassment feel upon seeing Always-Autumn naked in a locker room? How would a female rape victim feel?

But this criticism, like all others, has been shut down."...
Eventually, the subreddit's moderators deleted all responses critical of Always-Autumn, given the group's guidelines that prohibit " stirring the post." The thread has later been locked altogether.


The article refers to the man as "she" and "her" which is terrible journalism. Some people 'even' tried to take into account the feelings of women rape victims? Really? Wow, what an edgy concept. You've come a long way baby..

Imagine a site for debate locking down a thread where women are complaining that they must undress in front of a man and enduring him naked in the WOMEN'S locker room? What website nazis would do such a thing to drown the cries of distressed women? They could've covertly squelched the cries of protest by just dungeoning the conversation; ie: soft-banning any protests of women rape victims and their defenders.
If you want to produce an egalitarian Orwellian society...which is what the left wants...then blurr gender roles.

Yes. And then when they get in power, they round up all the freaks they encouraged to get there and kill them in camps. These idiots think they're going to get over on somebody else by parroting stupid mindless commie culture war insanity, while they're really just working for their own murders, a form of mass suicide for them.
 
Yes. And then when they get in power, they round up all the freaks they encouraged to get there and kill them in camps. These idiots think they're going to get over on somebody else by parroting stupid mindless commie culture war insanity, while they're really just working for their own murders, a form of mass suicide for them.

So they have a brilliant scheme to gain power advocating for a very small group, only to turn on them at some point?

Seriously, you think this is a thing.

How about, they stand up for the LGBT community because, frankly, its the right thing to do?
 
Yes. And then when they get in power, they round up all the freaks they encouraged to get there and kill them in camps. These idiots think they're going to get over on somebody else by parroting stupid mindless commie culture war insanity, while they're really just working for their own murders, a form of mass suicide for them.

So they have a brilliant scheme to gain power advocating for a very small group, only to turn on them at some point?

Seriously, you think this is a thing.

How about, they stand up for the LGBT community because, frankly, its the right thing to do?

nobody cares about your sick deviancy, and there is no 'LGBT community', dumbass, just a motley collection of mentally ill Pedo-Friendlies selling sick shit to kids and deviants like yourself. they're just one more epidemic away from extinction, since the don't give two shits about their 'community' and only about mindless self-indulgence. They don't care who they kill, and they will be treated the same way by your Commie Heroes you support.
 
Here's the funny thing... When a male dog humps another male dog, another dog doesn't run out with a book written 300 years ago (2000 in Dog years) and bark about how they are going to Hell for that.

Nope, the stupidity that is homophobia is purely a human thing.
Male dogs hump anything from frustration & testosterone...wanting at females. They’re seeking a hole, aren’t they? :popcorn:

Meanwhile, a dog doesn’t get to fool the kennel master by putting on a pink collar & getting granted access to the young bitches’ heat kennel at his leisure.
 
Again, he won 30 states to 20.

Awesome... which doesn't reflect what the people wanted at all.
OK, at the risk of derailing the thread, let me explain something to you about how elections work and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and why the system was set up the way it is. Most people live concentrated in a few states, mainly along coastlines. The FFs realized that if just the popular vote were taken into account, the other states would always suffer their unique interests slaughtered at the will of the more populated ones. Get that concept? From there, if the popular vote reigned supreme, the "Flyover" states and those who wanted a unique culture they themselves defined would be diluted to the point of just being a territory of the dominating coastal states. Sovereign states didn't/don't want the power of their own self-governance taken away. If the popular vote reigns supreme, the US would simply just be one giant territory without any unique individual states eventually....the power of the "Flyover states" so diluted as to not even make them matter anymore as unique societies to themselves.

Now, that may appeal to you since you may be one of the fascists who want a one-world thought process. But diversity is a nation's strength, yes? You'd argue that on another platform. But when it comes to diversity of THOUGHT and OPINION and individuals determining their own unique destiny, THAT is where you would draw the line and cry "but we won the popular vote!!!".

The FFs were smart. They realized how when herds get big they sometimes stampede if not checked by a few old-school cutting dogs. This is why ALL 50 states have EQUAL power in the Senate. And it's why the electoral college exists; even it is a compromise to the "population density" issue. So, take your gains and shut your mouth about taking away what little power still rests with states who have thinner populations.
 

Forum List

Back
Top