Im not asking for validation, Im not the smartest person in the world, but I believe in whats right...

Im not asking for validation, Im not the smartest person in the world, but I believe in whats right. I want to know if Im consistent with what Im saying or what Im saying is contradicting. Am I drowning in my own bias? not being able to see the flaws in my argument, because Im 100% sure I have many contradictory statements.

by the by, im losing heat in trying to argue everyone, and im starting to not make much sense.

black = me
grey = person who is friends with op but is rightwinged


red= person who made the post
any other color = leftwingers

Other urls found in this thread:

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4274821/
youtube.com/watch?v=-dbfXp8_qjo
biblehub.com/hebrew/1471.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

...

kys cringe lord

...

>meme texting on Facebook
You should kys redditcuck

call it cringe, Idk who else to go to.

le meme arrows

Respect my gender pronouns you cuck

>greentexting outside of the basket weaving forum

I bet you're a FUCKING white male
you should check you're privilege bro before Jamal checks it for ya

...

This
>everyone is against me? why?
>no... i know im right

do you relize how pathetic and cringey it is how you're runnign to us with screenshots so we can nurse your ego

Your approach with the argument is setting you up for defeat. If your claimed disagreement with trannies is upon the basis of morality (think of the children effected!. I was A-Okay with it until they involved kids!) the argument is going to go into each person's version of what is occurring. Trough their own moral lens, when it comes to these type of things you need to stand firm and address it on desire for truth/accuracy.

As mentioned in their comments, they appeal to science - what they view as truth. You need to approach this from a science angle if you ever want. A chance of convincing them of your side, they cannot argue against facts. Those looking on if you know your stuff may also be swayed too.

First, the term 'trans-gender' implies a belief. A belief in something which cannot currently be truth. One cannot change their gender, gender is determined at conception when the sperm binds to the egg. It can never be changed without heavy genetic engineering which we can't currently do.

There for the term itself implies a belief that cannot be done. The next is to focus on their proposed treatment. You do not enable someone suffering from mental illness. Otherwise you'll have blood on your hands when they off themselves when their delusions fuck up their life. Proper treatment is 'grounding' them in reality by comfortably bringing them to terms with it.

In other words - some guy who thinks he wants to be a girl. Should be treated as a guy, and helped to feel more comfortable with being a guy in the first place. The opposite will only cause confusion, and eventual suicide. Which is why post op tranny suicide is just as high if not higher.

quite aware of the possible consequences.
extremely aware of the short fuse. But I dont have anyone else to talk to.

Something else - your arguments speak towards your own lack of knowledge. As does the action of coming here for help. Of which I am not opposed, everyone does not know something. What we now know, we once did not. No one should ever feel ashamed or sorry for. Wishing to learn more. Outside of 4chans read relevant books on the topics you're interested in to help support your arguments in the future.

You're going to have to learn that in high school and college, there is leftism privilege. If you can't bring yourself to lie about your beliefs then you're going to have to stop talking about politics altogether. Save all politics discussion for the anonymous internet.

>lie and hide your beliefs
No, don't do this. No one should do this, they should examine their beliefs/values. Search for questions they may have regarding them. Discuss them openly with individuals of similar or opposing views. In order to learn more about their own beliefs and the validity of them. Never challenging others is weakness. Just approach the discussion from an objective stand point. Using perhaps larger words/some jargon mixed in. If someone accuses you of x, shift the discussion towards why x is even a problem. Make them challenge those mental barriers they have up.

Here's some stats to back up your argument

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf

"The prevalence of suicide attempts among respondents
to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey
(NTDS), conducted by the National Gay and Lesbian
Task Force and National Center for Transgender Equality,
is 41 percent, which vastly exceeds the 4.6 percent of
the overall U.S. population who report a lifetime suicide
attempt, and is also higher than the 10-20 percent
of lesbian, gay and bisexual adults who report ever
attempting suicide. Much remains to be learned about
underlying factors and which groups within the diverse
population of transgender and gender non-conforming
people are most at risk."

"Suicide attempts among trans men
(46%) and trans women (42%) were
slightly higher than the full sample (41%).
Cross-dressers assigned male at birth
have the lowest reported prevalence of
suicide attempts among gender identity
groups (21%)."

OP, arguing with people not on Sup Forums is the biggest waste of time ever considered. Even arguing on Sup Forums is retarded. Please read about philosophy and engage in self improvement.

>arguing on facebook
you're definitely american

Thanks mate

Okay here's a question, if you were in the Soviet Union in Russian in 1934, and you had capitalist (i.e. counterrevolutionary) convictions, would it be wise to "discuss them openly with individuals of similar or opposing views"?

False equivalence, it's not illegal or punishable by gulag to have opposing views. Also keep in mind that people under Soviet Union did have opposing views and did find communities to discuss them in. There where plenty of hold outs from the white counter-revolutionaries.

>It's not illegal to have opposing views
Tell that to Christopher Cantwell or the thousands of bongs in jail for mean tweets

call it cringe, but when I see the shit the left pulls, the shit antifa gets away with, the extremely pathetic media, I have to speak on it, no one else will, they continue to listen and follow these outlandish themes of pedophilia, mental illnesses, and unnecessary sexuality.

>Christopher Cantwell
He was charged for using pepper spray on counter protesters. Not for his ideals the protest was there to speak of.
>thousands of bongs in jail for mean tweets
OP and I are both Americans, this doesn't apply to us or the original context upon which my comments where made. I'm not as familiar with the British common laws which actually prevent Brits from speaking their mind enough to speak on that subject.

Honestly, this is why I don't have a Facebook. Do yourself a favor and stick to anti-social networking. 80%+ of humans are garbage.

>he was charged for using pepper spray on counter protestors
Defending yourself isn't a crime, unless you have wrongthing opinions

I'm American too but the first amendment will not protect us. The first amendment didn't stop riot police from shutting down the permitted event in Charlottesville, and it won't stop OP's friendly neighborhood antifa from stabbing him in a subway station

The Constitution was written for the ruling class. The people have no positive rights under it, at all.

>arguing on goybook
When will reddit FUCKING LEAVE

>greentexting on fb

This was argued poorly. At the point where he questioned why it would be so difficult to just abandon your position to express empathy for another, I would have asserted that empathy was specifically why I was arguing the position that I was.

I was quite aware, rereading.
however I felt pressured with time trying to argue everyone, I couldnt go into details.

>Defending yourself isn't a crime
Depends upon the circumstance and laws of the area you're in. Some places don't have stand your ground. Instead have 'duty to retreat' which means if you can run from a threat. You must do so, as fighting the threat would be unlawful. If he was in a location where he was lawfully in the right. He would not be convicted of a crime

>Unless you have wrong think opinions
Yet antifa, leftists, and others with 'right think' go to prison when they break the law as well.

>The first amendment didn't stop riot police from shutting down the permitted event in Charlottesville
The permit was re-instated by a federal court after the local government revoked it at the last moment. As far as I'm aware everyone who marched /protested. Was not rounded up and convicted of a crime. Because they operated within the confines of the legal assembly that was granted. Lawsuits could be made against the local government upon the basis of trying to discriminate. But our movement largely lacks people in specialty skills such as lawyers which may take up the case. As ACLU ended up backing down after public pressure

I have no illusions about the collapse of society, but as long as it's around. We must operate within it's legal confines(or unlawfully in covert) or we'll only hurt ourselves and any efforts we make.

Quite the opposite actually, Jefferson and his followers ensured America would lack a proper aristocracy. So we became a nation ruled by peasants. Most of our leadership and people who guide them are composed of complete idiots; or families who got their shit together and worked their way up.

The riot police assembled in Lee Park in Charlottesville 30 minutes before the event was supposed to start. They threatened to arrest everyone there on the grounds of felony trespassing. Everyone left except for Spencer, Damigo, and a few others who were arrested (but not charged because the threats were full of shit)

you're all over the place op. you need to learn how to argue without sounding like a retard. join the deabte club.

>They threatened to arrest everyone there on the grounds of felony trespassing
>but not charged because the threats were full of shit
Yes exactly, law enforcement agency's who're under the authority of local government did their job. But because the local government was in the legal wrong, the enforcement officers and courts did not follow up.

>Jefferson and his followers ensured America would lack a proper aristocracy
Instead, we have an improper one. I think you're living in your personal dramas and need to get out more.
>ruled by peasants
Show me where peasants can overrule the edicts of the Senate. pro tip: you can't and you're living in your personal dramas again.
>worked their way up
>still believing the meritocracy meme wasn't satire
>2017
The Puritan work ethic is faith-based cuckery. The only way to get ahead of others is jewery. Once again, you're living in your personal dramas and ignoring any evidence to the contrary. Maybe lebbit is a better site for your sort of sjewry.

>opinions
Do more research and drop the truth bomb

> people with gender dysphoria are much more prone to schizophrenia than the general population, people with schizophrenia are prone to changing genders and identities!

The two conditions have a lot of similar mechanisms! Ergo they are more than just sort of mentally disturbed they are borderline schizophrenic's. Ever wondered why male transsexuals are so dangerous?

Source:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4274821/

Proven by multiple studies, done across multiple countries with no association

Yes you're right, in the broader federal system your rights will be defended, for now. But you can't go into commie strongholds and expect humanity to be respected in the moment. The city of Charlottesville is one such commie stronghold. And every university in the country is a commie stronghold. So what's the point of OP expressing "cisnormative" opinoins in the commie stronghold known as school? (it's pretty obvious he's a student). All it will get for him is discrimination from his commie teachers, if not outright harassment from antifa.

>muh commie schools
>muh commie
>commie
You did it, shareblue. You finally made me filter the otherwise reasonable and eloquent pirate flag.

Commie is not a synonym for Russian you fucking retard
>muh Shareblue

>implies shareblue doesn't, couldn't, and wouldn't false-flag
My god you're innocent. Bye now.
>reloads
>filter activated

>A republic is based upon the idea of electing representatives via democracy from candidates among the people's community
The colonies where largely an effort by European powers to mark their claim to influence in new lands. The American revolution was largely based upon egalitarianism vs maintaining hierarchy. During Washington administration a clear difference in the future of the nation emerged. Hamilton represented the voice calling for a new hierarchy. Which incorporated elements of an influential aristocracy like was present in Europe. Jefferson represented the voice for even more egalitarianism and had the peasants rally behind him. Federalist vs Democratic-Republican, later Whigs vs Democratic-Republican. Now we have Democrats, and Republicans. Both differing degrees of pro-Democracy parties. Both legacy's of Jefferson.

However, because egalitarianism is unnatural. Hierarchy still developed, families of power emerged by working hard and looking out for their own. Nepotism is natural, kicking your kids out and not helping them is not. So the ones who stuck together got ahead.

>The only way to get ahead of others is Jewry
Most "Jews" in the west are atheistic/non-practicing. The ones who aren't normally belong to 'reform' Judaism which has the same cucky egalitarinistic core as most protestants.

Okay bye

>For now
When it stops being the case will likely be the day we have open fighting in the streets and break down of all manner of law and order.

>But you can't go into commie strongholds and expect humanity to be respected in the moment.
No but you can do everything lawfully and bring charges against those who where unlawful. You can improve your image greatly in the minds of the general public by being the voice of reason.

>So what's the point of OP expressing "cisnormative" opinoins in the commie stronghold known as school?
Being a voice for everyone else who thinks the same way you do. Preventing the eventual isolation and personal breaks which causes so many of our brother's to off themselves or go down shooting. Instead of forming like minded community's clubs to advance the cause.

>All it will get for him is discrimination from his commie teachers
Bring it to the attention of the Dean and board, if they don't take action. Bring it to the media who will make a big stink about it until it's dealt with.

>if not outright harassment from antifa.
Pursue legal channels to get them locked up. quite a lot of them where locked up for their actions at previous events already.

To advance our goals we must both work within the confines of our current system; as well as prepare for the new system we'll create when it falls.

All you gotta say to shut up any retard who talks about respecting gender pronouns is "Respect needs to be earned".
Why the fuck would anyone go around randomly respecting guys dressed up as girls?

In practice, it's more like:
>A republic is based upon the idea of electing rulers via beauty pageant from candidates among the ruler's communities
The whole point is that the people are subordinate to a self-selecting, self-perpetuating ruling class. The idea doesn't reflect the reality of it.
>The American revolution was largely based upon egalitarianism vs maintaining hierarchy
That's romantic, but wrong. It was in fact based upon a desire of the local lords to not be subject to foreign lords.
>Hamilton represented the voice calling for a new hierarchy
Aaron Burr should have shot him earlier.
>egalitarianism is unnatural
Only if people are prevented by law from dealing with the hierarchy that forms. Cucks are made, not born.
>Most "Jews" in the west are atheistic/non-practicing
But they as a tribe still believe they're entitled to lord it over the goyim.>capitalizes Democracy as if it were a religious deity
You can't even honestly into power relations without referring back to your "natural law" furry larp. Why am I even engaging your hagiographic mythos?

>via beauty pageant from candidates among the ruler's communities
There is no ruler, there is only 'representative' from the community electing them.
>The whole point is that the people are subordinate to a self-selecting, self-perpetuating ruling class. The idea doesn't reflect the reality of it.
Yes exactly, which is why democracy is and always will be a colossal failure. Socrates spoke to this, many counter-revolutionaries during the American and French revolutions spoke to this fact. Trying to defy hierarchy, and pursue 'equality' is not realistic and will have poor outcome.

>It was in fact based upon a desire of the local lords to not be subject to foreign lords.
This is actually an interesting perspective, but not entirely different from what I'm saying either. The 'local lords' would of been those who aligned with Hamilton and the Federalists.

>Aaron Burr should have shot him earlier.
Why? Hamilton was right. Look at where having private banks vs the national ones Hamilton wanted has lead us alone.

>Only if people are prevented by law from dealing with the hierarchy that forms.
A hierarchy will always form, that's the entire point. That's why it's unnatural, every level of societal development is one hierarchy joining an even larger one. We go from alone and naked in the woods, to the first hierarchy being a family. Man being at the top, than we have a tribe which consisted of a few families. Where one of them is above the others. Then we have a town with many families where each one take's it's place on the hierarchy. With merit showing who should be where. Town becomes city, city becomes city state, city state becomes nation etc

Every problem in society stems from ignoring/trying to work around natural laws. Such as hierarchy

>But they as a tribe
Provide your personal criteria for what is considered a "Jew". I guarantee you, much like what qualifies as "white" there will be no single common answer here.

>lord it over the goyim
Goy/Goyim never meant what it's commonly thought to mean. The word was used in reference towards those of the 'lost children of Israel'. The ones Jesus was trying to unite back into those adhering to Mosanic law.

>capitalizes Democracy as if it were a religious deity
I notice you didn't take fault with my capitalization of "European" Also not just religious or individual peoples are supposed to be capitalized in English.

>There is no ruler, there is only 'representative' from the community electing them.
You're ignoring the several veto powers which parties and local aristocrats establish, as well as the fact that elections don't actually have to be counted. Stalin was right on that point.
>Yes exactly, which is why democracy is and always will be a colossal failure
You're twisting my words. The whole point of republicanism is that the people are subordinate to a ruling class. It's not a state of nature.
>Socrates spoke to this
No, he didn't. Plato, the original bourgeois authoritarian, put words in his mouth. Stop living in the 18th century, if you can.
>Look at where having private banks vs the national ones Hamilton wanted has lead us alone.
>implying that I must only believe consistently what old aristocrats believe
If you can't think and synthesize for yourself, there is no point in continuing this argument. You will continue to believe whatever your favored authorities from 250 years ago believed.
>A hierarchy will always form, that's the entire point
Not if they're killed.
>That's why it's unnatural, every level of societal development is one hierarchy joining an even larger one
You disgusting internationalist cuck.
Done with your rationalization now.

>using meme arrows on normiebook

Faggot.

You have a better argument but the person you're arguing with is better with rehtoric than you are.
First thing he did was misdirected, he changed it from "not a political issue, a moral one" and now you're arguing something completely different.
It is political if the law is involved. Period.
I'd take the position that the most moral thing to do is not force language onto anyone else. To stop them from speaking freely is worse and more harmful than anything they may actually say.
There ya go, a political and moral argument.
Wanna know why I don't respect gender pronouns? Because I don't use pronouns to refer to gender. I only use pronouns to refer to sex. Of which, there are only two.

Go and talk about being a nazi in public. Just don't expect to not get shot the next day.

Isn't that presumptuous of you to concern yourself with the parts of someone you will never, ever see?

>You're ignoring the several veto powers which parties and local aristocrats establish
You're ignoring the fact that practically any representative can face a re-call election at any point. Of their electors view them as no longer representing them. This happens in local politics quite often in fact.

>as well as the fact that elections don't actually have to be counted
Do you have absolutely zero experience in actually participating in our political process? That's the only reason that could explain such a blatantly, demonstrably wrong thing to say. Feel free to volunteer as a poll/ballot watcher and see how the system works.

>You're twisting my words.
No I'm not, I'm simply agreeing with parts of what you say. You don't like this because you've apparently come to a different conclusion then I have on what the events mean.

>The whole point of republicanism is that the people are subordinate to a ruling class
No, the whole point of Republicanism is trying Democracy in a different way.

>No, he didn't
Proof?

>Plato, the original bourgeois authoritarian
Plato would be more akin to what is now called a 'technocrat' as his calling for a Republic. Required an informed citizenry to take part in it. It's why he advocated for public education. To try and ensure such an informed citizenry would take shape.

>implying that I must only believe consistently what old aristocrats believe
>Implying that new ideas practically ever exist
No, I'm implying that hierarchy is natural. That every healthy society has aristocrats often leading the common man.

>You will continue to believe whatever your favored authorities from 250 years ago believed.
No, I will support a system which works and is in line with natural law. One which when you lack actual criticism of. Consistently resort to personal attacks.

Do you know the concept of Reframing?
You take a point they make, reframe it, so now their own point is being used against them
>not calling them what they wanna be called is basic human decensy
>no, calling them what they wanna be called is a special request when what they wanna be called is something created last week and for which we need to make a completely new pronoun and next week its gonna be something new and then that'll be "basic human decency" so I'm gonna throw in the towel now and not let .01% of 1he population, the majority of whom have severe mental issues, decide what is basic decency and what is not
See how that works? Reframe their own shit and you'll never be on the defense

you have an ally (gray). good

the rest of them, don't take them seriously, don't bother arguing with retards. it won't change anybody's mind

they're not rational. don't expect honesty or intellectual consistency. expect to be insulted and other feminine manipulative tactics. you can win the argument by being direct, simple, and forceful. disregard bullshit

also, quit typing "lmao" and "rofl", etc. just gets in the way, seems inappropriate all the time. you're not actually laughing constantly. seems more defensive than anything

>Isn't that presumptuous of you to concern yourself with the parts of someone you will never, ever see?
Huh?

LMAO
Goyim translates to cattle you filthy lying heeb

>Not if they're killed.
When a higher spot on the hierarchy is not taken. It will be fought over by interested parties until it is. Why do you think corporatism is even a thing? Why do you think all the criticism of Ancap can be boiled down to "When people are given freedom, they still form hierarchy's which mirror a state"? It cannot be killed because it's natural to have them.

>Internationalist
>Internationalism is a political principle which transcends nationalism and advocates a greater political or economic cooperation among nations and people.
The only form if 'internationalism' that what I'm saying relates to. Would be empires, where nation states are dissolved into a larger hierarchy.

>I only use pronouns to refer to sex. Of which, there are only two.
Exactly. What's in their pants is not the least of your business.
Adam's apples and no boobs, on the other hand, are fair game.

>Go and talk about being a nazi in public Just don't expect to not get shot the next day.
youtube.com/watch?v=-dbfXp8_qjo
Believe it or not, people do and aren't shot. There is noting illegal about claiming to be one.

>Goyim translates to cattle
biblehub.com/hebrew/1471.htm

Oh OK, thanks for clearing that up.
No I don't think it's presumptious at all.
I'm calling them him or her based on what's in their pants instead of based on such a silly fluid concept like gender
My words have a foundation in objective reality that way, instead of the other way.

i will be respectful with someones pronoun, but if you put it into LAW, i will troll you into counselling.
so deal with it or kys

>What's in their pants is not the least of your business
Sex is not determined by external genitals. It's why a man who mutilates his penis does not become a woman. Neither will his inverted penis cave function like a vagina, it will not self lubricate, it will not possess a clitoris, it will not be connected to a uterus, it will not posses the same muscles. It will not take even the same shape as the labia. It will function like a wound, it will try to close/heal. It will have to be forced to stay open (post op dilation) and bleed/become infected frequently.

This is ultimately what the left fails to see.

Nice blog

>using cuckbook
>green texting outside of Sup Forums
youre wrong no matter what here

>i will be respectful with someones pronoun, but if you put it into LAW
A law is ever changing, it's a reflection of the values of the people it applies to. If you bend on finding it acceptable in every day life. It will eventually become law when it's normalized. Don't complain about something becoming law. When you refused to object to it when it wasn't

Gender isn't objective reality. It's larp. In fact, since you'll probably be interacting more with their larp than with their genitals, I would argue it makes more sense to simply play along with presentation, not that it should be law to do so, but simply basic respect for, not necessarily them, but the gender roles they larp.

>implies neoliberals are left
Stop that

I disagree.
Media and Liberals are forcing this shit down our throats, and pretending its what everyone wants. Its not. I have friends who are trans and they dont want this attention. Its negative. Makes it harder for them to find jobs.
Its pure identity politics designed to divide us into categories and pit us against each other.
I do object to it, but the Liberal gov't is like the "tail wagging the dog".

>Gender isn't objective reality
Yes it is. Gender is tied to genetics. The term gender arose if I'm not mistaken during the Victorian era as another name for 'sex' when 'sex' was deemed 'dirty'

Good argument, user. But I simply do not respect their larp.
As far as interaction goes, I don't see that happening on any level, whether it's to be friendly or be nasty
And in all honesty, if the situation presented itself, I would most likely play along until I thought of a good exit strategy and GTFO instead of causing a scene with such mentally unstable individuals

>Its pure identity politics designed to divide us into categories and pit us against each other.
You mean I'm not the only one who wishes the liberal bourgeoisie would hang on meat hooks?

This is not difficult unless youre a retarded leftist.

1 of 3 scenarios is true:

1. You can bear children
2. you can impregnate someone who can bear children
3. You are hermaphrodite, but are still capable of either 1. or 2.

The science is settled on this. There is nothing to discuss other than liberals crying.

>Media and liberals
Media is not one organization. Each one has it's own agenda. But it's mostly based around appealing to the majority. Much like any other business trying to target majority market share.

>pretending its what everyone wants.
You just said you're a-okay with it in common place. If everyone acts like you and doesn't object. Why would they think they're wrong when they try and codify it into law?

Ideological fighting leads to laws being created, laws created does not lead to ideological fighting.

>I have friends who're trans
There is no such thing as 'transgender' Gender cannot change. You have friends who suffer from identity issues. Who're having trouble accepting reality.

>Designed to divide us into categories and pit us against each other
Politics is war by another means. There is never not going to be a point in time when this does not occur. Where sides form and people fight over their ideology. There is no neutral, there is no middle ground, there is no compromise. There is only sides, and what battles each side is willing to lose.

>I do object to it
Good, but that's not what you said earlier.

>Liberal government is like a tail wagging the dog
The liberal government is in power because not enough right wing people elected their representatives. Non-election time is when the constant battle happens. It's where you try to convert people to your camp. Election time is all sides seeing who converted the most people.

>The science is settled on this.
Yes exactly. Which is why directing this from a scientific stand point is the way to go.

I argue that, if you don't respect their larp, you might not respect gender at all, in which case why bother taking any of it seriously as if defending it?

False.
4. You were born with apparently normal genitalia that are nonfunctional.
5. You were born with normal genitalia but have been sterilized.
6. You were born with abnormal or no genitalia.
Maybe you should stop being american and pretending like you have exhaustively enumerated all the policies while pretending those that don't support your opinionated worldview don't exist.

...

Since about 0.0000000000000001% of the population has this problem, we should make laws for the rest of the population to follow incase their feelings get hurt.
Nice argument.
Go kys thx.

>4. You were born with apparently normal genitalia that are nonfunctional.
>5. You were born with normal genitalia but have been sterilized.
>6. You were born with abnormal or no genitalia.
>Implying birth defects counteract the established fact of chromosomal determinism leading to what sex/gender you are

All of those are still one of two genders you fucking megacunt.

>1 of 3 scenarios is true:
>1. You can bear children
>2. you can impregnate someone who can bear children
>3. You are hermaphrodite, but are still capable of either 1. or 2.
>The science is settled on this.

The science is even more settled than you think.

>False.
>4. You were born with apparently normal genitalia that are nonfunctional.
>5. You were born with normal genitalia but have been sterilized.
>6. You were born with abnormal or no genitalia.
>Maybe you should stop being american

Said the american showing his own stupidity.

Listen; go ask your fucking doctors and high level bioteachers how many gametes a single human can produce. This includes herms and other fucking genetic disasters. Answer? Sperm or ova. Yes, even if you have both genetalia, you will either be genetically male or female in what your body is configured to produce.

There's men, women and genetic anomalies. That's it. And if you take a second to ponder you'll realize why. Anything else is a fucking genetic dead end. It's as useful as being born with brain cancer.

Nature doesn't give a shit about your "right to exist".

>Since about 0.0000000000000001% of the population has this problem
>born with apparently normal genitalia that are nonfunctional.
>still need a fucking pronoun
Well?
>kys
Go suck-start a revolver, you edgy little fuck.

If' he'd called them retarded liberals I probably would not only not be an ass about this, but might well have agreed, with strong reservations. As it is, some edgy little neorx shit-talker deserves a good hard raping with a plunger, not the respect extended to honest interlocutors.

>anomalies
They still need a fucking pronoun for as long as they're here, you psychopathic ass.

>how many gametes a single human can produce. This includes herms and other fucking genetic disasters. Answer? Sperm or ova. Yes, even if you have both genetalia, you will either be genetically male or female in what your body is configured to produce.
>There's men, women and genetic anomalies. That's it. And if you take a second to ponder you'll realize why. Anything else is a fucking genetic dead end. It's as useful as being born with brain cancer.

>Nature doesn't give a shit about your "right to exist".
Well said Swedebro

>They still need a fucking pronoun for as long as they're here, you psychopathic ass.
Acknowledging reality does not make one a 'psychopath' user.

Wow, a nigger.
Now show me a white man.

>They still need a fucking pronoun

I've got it! Shitforbrains. That's perfect, don't you think, shitforbrains?

>Claims expressing national socialist views in public is not okay, and will often lead to being murdered
>Is shown openly speaking of National Socialist beliefs in public
>Doesn't accept it because of whose doing it
Okay, just go look at Richard Spencer speaking about his views very public ally.
>But he's been attacked
He's still alive, and his attackers face jail time if they where caught for breaking the law.

Good post

>b-b-but how will everyone know I’m an edgelord if I don’t memetext?

Go fucking bork yourself you neoliberal piece of shit.

>Acknowledging biological reality makes you neo-liberal
What?

Most people aren't retarded enough to speak up in this current climate. Most don't want to end up shot or whatever else. You're arguments are stupid and Richard Spencer isn't a nazi. Kill yourself faggot.