Who is this adorable little girl??

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
82,343
Reaction score
12,038
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Its the faggot FDR, yeah, back then liberals still fucked with their children.
:clap:

The second one is of Louis XV.

I suspect it was only the wealthiest boys that wore dresses (the sons of capitalists). They all didn't grow up to be transgender did they??


When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink? | Page 1 | Arts & Culture | Smithsonian
You think Louis XV was a CAPITALIST? :eek: :lol: :lmao: :rofl:

You ISIS members are the dumbest of the dumb....
Yes he was dirt poor.:rolleyes:

You truly are as dumb as camel dung.

Yes, Capitalists have more than you dumb fucking Muzzie Beasts, but wealth is not capitalism. Louis was a MONARCH you fucking retard.
This is what I said "only the wealthiest boys that wore dresses (the sons of capitalists).
How do you think FDR's daddy got wealthy??
Who cares?

You claimed Louis XV was a CAPITALIST, the FUCKING MONARCH of France.

You are dumb as camel dung.
 

Two Thumbs

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
38,215
Reaction score
6,495
Points
1,140
Location
Where ever I go, there I am.
Its the faggot FDR, yeah, back then liberals still fucked with their children.
he looks like he's on the edge of tears

but he's so cute, so the abuse is ok
I knew it is FDR. The stories of his mother's obsessive care were rampant many years ago, but it was never considered abuse back then. His mother, Sara Delano, ruled his life until she died, long after he was married and father to a passel of kids. He turned out OK.

It is kinda sad to see the past judged by today's cynical and malevolent speculative standards. When I was a teen, back in to 50's, and there weren't enough guys to go around, girls danced together and were never considered 'odd'. Guys shared living quarters by necessity and weren't considered 'odd'. And 'only' children were the only ones that had their own room.
and?

look at his face, he's hating what's going on.

this just shows that leftist abuse of children is nothing new.
 

Two Thumbs

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
38,215
Reaction score
6,495
Points
1,140
Location
Where ever I go, there I am.
Its the faggot FDR, yeah, back then liberals still fucked with their children.
he looks like he's on the edge of tears

but he's so cute, so the abuse is ok
I knew it is FDR. The stories of his mother's obsessive care were rampant many years ago, but it was never considered abuse back then. His mother, Sara Delano, ruled his life until she died, long after he was married and father to a passel of kids. He turned out OK.

It is kinda sad to see the past judged by today's cynical and malevolent speculative standards. When I was a teen, back in to 50's, and there weren't enough guys to go around, girls danced together and were never considered 'odd'. Guys shared living quarters by necessity and weren't considered 'odd'. And 'only' children were the only ones that had their own room.
Wow. That's a true pleated skirt and look at the maryjanes on his feet. And that is Ravi's hat.
That's incredible.
I have a picture of my dad from around 1925 when he was probably 2 or 3, standing in the yard in a shift that was more like a nightgown--I figured it was more practical when you had a shitload of kids to wear indeterminate sacks--one size fits many. Also it's easier to change the diaper.
But THIS is a true dressing her son as a girl thing. Was the woman mad?
she's clearly abusing him.

his face makes it clear he is not having fun and is near crying
 

Marion Morrison

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
54,461
Reaction score
11,535
Points
2,040
To me it seems so odd that what the article calls "gender neutral" isn't actually neutral at all. King Louis is decked out as a GIRL as is FDR. The hair, the dresses, the footwear--nothing "neutral" about it. It's a friggin disguise.

WHY if girls were at the bottom of the totem pole, just another mouth to feed until you could marry her off, preferably before she got pregnant, were noble families like Louis' and elite families like the Roosevelts disguising their sons and heirs as GIRLS? It makes no sense whatever unless.....

The well heeled loved to ape the nobility. It made them feel more important. (Americans got the idea of decorating Christmas trees NOT from the Germans but from Queen Victoria, who got the idea from the Germans). The nobility had their own problems at Court--often a cut throat place where many, including sometimes your own siblings, wanted the heir apparent dead. So dressing him up as a girl and setting him loose in the courtyard to play with his sisters would protect him, would it not? Only the nannies would know.

The noble tradition was copied by the hangers on and was followed for centuries because that's what traditions do. They just hang around. Hand me downs being part of it, probably. There is no reason why all little girls couldn't have been dressed in boys' clothes 'til age 6 either, but no....

So what do you think? Cleopatra killed her brother. Queen Elizabeth 1st killed her sister. King Arthur being sent away to be raised by a huntsman in the woods in order to protect him was no solitary incident. I think this is why this very weird tradition.
Bitter clingers. :abgg2q.jpg:
 
OP
Penelope

Penelope

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
45,006
Reaction score
4,649
Points
1,860
Penny have you spent any time thinking about why pushing transgenderism on toddlers may not be a good idea, or are you just mouthing what your overlords think is best?

I'd love to know
I have no overlords. Also I'm not pushing transgenderism, did these two little boys have a gender problem, no. I am stating its not the parents or the teachers pushing this, but the parents just might be accountable unknowingly due to what meds they took and or genetics. It's biological.
It's not biological. Biologically almost all transgender people are intact and whole, with correct DNA and genitalia.
Yes its biological. Read all the links I left in the other thread, and you know which one.

Or read this link and follow the footnotes.
Causes of transsexuality - Wikipedia

Its the Christian community who are so anti transgender people and so you do not believe the bible where Jesus said some eunuchs are created that way, made that way (sterilization), or chose to be that way. (Paul) and I suspect Jesus was that way in the NT gospels. Asexual.
Wikipedia is not a valid source, Ahmed. Certainly not for political issues.

How do you Muslims handle the mental illness of gender dysphoria?

***Mod Edit - Read the rules regarding images of the type you posted.***


Oh, that's right.
Yes follow the footnotes, you do know what footnotes are , don't you?
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
59,996
Reaction score
12,451
Points
2,220
To me it seems so odd that what the article calls "gender neutral" isn't actually neutral at all. King Louis is decked out as a GIRL as is FDR. The hair, the dresses, the footwear--nothing "neutral" about it. It's a friggin disguise.

WHY if girls were at the bottom of the totem pole, just another mouth to feed until you could marry her off, preferably before she got pregnant, were noble families like Louis' and elite families like the Roosevelts disguising their sons and heirs as GIRLS? It makes no sense whatever unless.....

The well heeled loved to ape the nobility. It made them feel more important. (Americans got the idea of decorating Christmas trees NOT from the Germans but from Queen Victoria, who got the idea from the Germans). The nobility had their own problems at Court--often a cut throat place where many, including sometimes your own siblings, wanted the heir apparent dead. So dressing him up as a girl and setting him loose in the courtyard to play with his sisters would protect him, would it not? Only the nannies would know.

The noble tradition was copied by the hangers on and was followed for centuries because that's what traditions do. They just hang around. Hand me downs being part of it, probably. There is no reason why all little girls couldn't have been dressed in boys' clothes 'til age 6 either, but no....

So what do you think? Cleopatra killed her brother. Queen Elizabeth 1st killed her sister. King Arthur being sent away to be raised by a huntsman in the woods in order to protect him was no solitary incident. I think this is why this very weird tradition.
Bitter clingers. :abgg2q.jpg:
What the devil is that?
 

Marion Morrison

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
54,461
Reaction score
11,535
Points
2,040
To me it seems so odd that what the article calls "gender neutral" isn't actually neutral at all. King Louis is decked out as a GIRL as is FDR. The hair, the dresses, the footwear--nothing "neutral" about it. It's a friggin disguise.

WHY if girls were at the bottom of the totem pole, just another mouth to feed until you could marry her off, preferably before she got pregnant, were noble families like Louis' and elite families like the Roosevelts disguising their sons and heirs as GIRLS? It makes no sense whatever unless.....

The well heeled loved to ape the nobility. It made them feel more important. (Americans got the idea of decorating Christmas trees NOT from the Germans but from Queen Victoria, who got the idea from the Germans). The nobility had their own problems at Court--often a cut throat place where many, including sometimes your own siblings, wanted the heir apparent dead. So dressing him up as a girl and setting him loose in the courtyard to play with his sisters would protect him, would it not? Only the nannies would know.

The noble tradition was copied by the hangers on and was followed for centuries because that's what traditions do. They just hang around. Hand me downs being part of it, probably. There is no reason why all little girls couldn't have been dressed in boys' clothes 'til age 6 either, but no....

So what do you think? Cleopatra killed her brother. Queen Elizabeth 1st killed her sister. King Arthur being sent away to be raised by a huntsman in the woods in order to protect him was no solitary incident. I think this is why this very weird tradition.
Bitter clingers. :abgg2q.jpg:
What the devil is that?
Dried-up dingleberries on butt hairs. Sorry you asked.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
59,996
Reaction score
12,451
Points
2,220
To me it seems so odd that what the article calls "gender neutral" isn't actually neutral at all. King Louis is decked out as a GIRL as is FDR. The hair, the dresses, the footwear--nothing "neutral" about it. It's a friggin disguise.

WHY if girls were at the bottom of the totem pole, just another mouth to feed until you could marry her off, preferably before she got pregnant, were noble families like Louis' and elite families like the Roosevelts disguising their sons and heirs as GIRLS? It makes no sense whatever unless.....

The well heeled loved to ape the nobility. It made them feel more important. (Americans got the idea of decorating Christmas trees NOT from the Germans but from Queen Victoria, who got the idea from the Germans). The nobility had their own problems at Court--often a cut throat place where many, including sometimes your own siblings, wanted the heir apparent dead. So dressing him up as a girl and setting him loose in the courtyard to play with his sisters would protect him, would it not? Only the nannies would know.

The noble tradition was copied by the hangers on and was followed for centuries because that's what traditions do. They just hang around. Hand me downs being part of it, probably. There is no reason why all little girls couldn't have been dressed in boys' clothes 'til age 6 either, but no....

So what do you think? Cleopatra killed her brother. Queen Elizabeth 1st killed her sister. King Arthur being sent away to be raised by a huntsman in the woods in order to protect him was no solitary incident. I think this is why this very weird tradition.
Bitter clingers. :abgg2q.jpg:
What the devil is that?
Dried-up dingleberries on butt hairs. Sorry you asked.
Who is a bitter clinger? FDR, his mother, or Cleopatra?
 

Marion Morrison

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
54,461
Reaction score
11,535
Points
2,040
To me it seems so odd that what the article calls "gender neutral" isn't actually neutral at all. King Louis is decked out as a GIRL as is FDR. The hair, the dresses, the footwear--nothing "neutral" about it. It's a friggin disguise.

WHY if girls were at the bottom of the totem pole, just another mouth to feed until you could marry her off, preferably before she got pregnant, were noble families like Louis' and elite families like the Roosevelts disguising their sons and heirs as GIRLS? It makes no sense whatever unless.....

The well heeled loved to ape the nobility. It made them feel more important. (Americans got the idea of decorating Christmas trees NOT from the Germans but from Queen Victoria, who got the idea from the Germans). The nobility had their own problems at Court--often a cut throat place where many, including sometimes your own siblings, wanted the heir apparent dead. So dressing him up as a girl and setting him loose in the courtyard to play with his sisters would protect him, would it not? Only the nannies would know.

The noble tradition was copied by the hangers on and was followed for centuries because that's what traditions do. They just hang around. Hand me downs being part of it, probably. There is no reason why all little girls couldn't have been dressed in boys' clothes 'til age 6 either, but no....

So what do you think? Cleopatra killed her brother. Queen Elizabeth 1st killed her sister. King Arthur being sent away to be raised by a huntsman in the woods in order to protect him was no solitary incident. I think this is why this very weird tradition.
Bitter clingers. :abgg2q.jpg:
What the devil is that?
Dried-up dingleberries on butt hairs. Sorry you asked.
Who is a bitter clinger? FDR, his mother, or Cleopatra?
D: All of the above.
 

Erinwltr

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2018
Messages
6,698
Reaction score
898
Points
275
To me it seems so odd that what the article calls "gender neutral" isn't actually neutral at all. King Louis is decked out as a GIRL as is FDR. The hair, the dresses, the footwear--nothing "neutral" about it. It's a friggin disguise.

WHY if girls were at the bottom of the totem pole, just another mouth to feed until you could marry her off, preferably before she got pregnant, were noble families like Louis' and elite families like the Roosevelts disguising their sons and heirs as GIRLS? It makes no sense whatever unless.....

The well heeled loved to ape the nobility. It made them feel more important. (Americans got the idea of decorating Christmas trees NOT from the Germans but from Queen Victoria, who got the idea from the Germans). The nobility had their own problems at Court--often a cut throat place where many, including sometimes your own siblings, wanted the heir apparent dead. So dressing him up as a girl and setting him loose in the courtyard to play with his sisters would protect him, would it not? Only the nannies would know.

The noble tradition was copied by the hangers on and was followed for centuries because that's what traditions do. They just hang around. Hand me downs being part of it, probably. There is no reason why all little girls couldn't have been dressed in boys' clothes 'til age 6 either, but no....

So what do you think? Cleopatra killed her brother. Queen Elizabeth 1st killed her sister. King Arthur being sent away to be raised by a huntsman in the woods in order to protect him was no solitary incident. I think this is why this very weird tradition.
Bitter clingers. :abgg2q.jpg:
What the devil is that?
Dried-up dingleberries on butt hairs. Sorry you asked.
Yeppers, gettin' and education this early morning.
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
82,343
Reaction score
12,038
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Penny have you spent any time thinking about why pushing transgenderism on toddlers may not be a good idea, or are you just mouthing what your overlords think is best?

I'd love to know
I have no overlords. Also I'm not pushing transgenderism, did these two little boys have a gender problem, no. I am stating its not the parents or the teachers pushing this, but the parents just might be accountable unknowingly due to what meds they took and or genetics. It's biological.
It's not biological. Biologically almost all transgender people are intact and whole, with correct DNA and genitalia.
Yes its biological. Read all the links I left in the other thread, and you know which one.

Or read this link and follow the footnotes.
Causes of transsexuality - Wikipedia

Its the Christian community who are so anti transgender people and so you do not believe the bible where Jesus said some eunuchs are created that way, made that way (sterilization), or chose to be that way. (Paul) and I suspect Jesus was that way in the NT gospels. Asexual.
Wikipedia is not a valid source, Ahmed. Certainly not for political issues.

How do you Muslims handle the mental illness of gender dysphoria?

***Mod Edit - Read the rules regarding images of the type you posted.***


Oh, that's right.
Yes follow the footnotes, you do know what footnotes are , don't you?
You Muzzie Beasts murder homosexuals and transgender mentally ill.

Clean up your own house before attacking ours, Muzzie Beast.
 

New Posts

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top