Categories
antifeminism drama kings facepalm gullibility men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA playing the victim PUA sex sexy robot ladies shit that never happened straw feminists

Manosphere doofuses duped again by phony Canadian sexbot ban

NOTE: Don't buy this model. She's trouble.
NOTE: Don’t buy this model. She’s trouble.

So the Boobz are getting worked up – again – over some imaginary “proposed legislation” to ban sexbots. Vox Day, one of the esteemed elder statesmen of the right-wing of the manosphere, has resurrected an urban legend that first fooled his comrades about two years ago, reposting a “statement” of mysterious Canadian origin explaining that

provisions have been proposed for the new Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act, the first draft of which is currently being finalized.The provisions are specifically meant to target the concerns that were expressed at the roundtable that sexbots will negatively impact the pursuit for gender equality and may unduly emphasize the objectification of women as sexual objects.The suggested provisions fall into the larger framework of regulating the emerging service robot industry that will be governed by the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act and under the direction of the Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence, to be established in Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories at the end of next year.

The main provision of this dastardly Femi-Canadian proposed legislation?

The use of sexbots in the privacy of one’s home is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by the Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence or a relevant regulating agency as per the criteria outlined in the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act.

You may wonder: Why didn’t I read anything in the papers about this Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act? Why haven’t I heard about this Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence?

Well, you guessed it. Because neither of them exist. I looked into this two years ago when the story first, er, broke in the manosphere. There’s no vast feminist conspiracy to deny Canadian men (or, for that matter, women) their still-imaginary sexbots. The “statement” was evidently written as part of a law school class project on law and robotics taught by Prof. Ian Kerr at the University of Ottawa Law School.

If you Google “Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act”  or “Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence” you will find that literally the only people talking about this issue are MRAs and PUAs and conspiracy theorists. And some of the more gullible 4channers, though a few of them quickly figured out that the whole thing was fake. (As did the Real Doll enthusiasts.)

Vox Day, who has yet to come to this realization, draws some dire conclusions from this thing that isn’t real, declaring that the

This Canadian attempt to preemptively ban sexbots is an overt confession by feminists of both sexes concerning their belief that women have nothing significant to offer men but sexual services.  Moreover, it is proof that their “pursuit for gender equality” is directly and fundamentally opposed to the most basic human freedom. …

One would think that even those only superficially acquainted with human history would realize that attempts to put the technological genie back in the bottle almost always fail, as do attempts to prevent men and women from pursuing pleasure in ways deemed illicit.  But then, a near-complete ignorance of human history is required to either be a feminist or possess a genuine belief in the rainbow-tailed unicorn of equality.

Well, not so much. Though Vox proves yet again that there are few people on planet earth as gullible as the manosphere’s pompous philosophers.

NOTE: Vox isn’t the only manospherian up in arms about the evil imaginary sexbot ban; more on this tomorrow.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

510 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dvärghundspossen
8 years ago

Heterosexuals are attracted to women. The people we are talking about are not attracted to women, they are attracted to a fake, non-existent construct that resembles the surface details of a stereotype of women that’s designed to serve their own needs and doesn’t take into account that their partners are actual autonomous people with legitimate needs. They’re hetero-fantasy-sexuals, I dunno what you’d call them! Maybe we don’t have the same definition of heterosexual??

This was really enlightening regarding you’re heterosexuality comments. 🙂

I think everyone assumed that when you first said “they’re not really hetero” you meant that they’re secretely attracted to other men, or secretely asexual. The reason being that these theories have been proposed before on Manboobz, and that’s pretty offensive to gays and aces.

pecunium
8 years ago

PennyDreadful: whomever ********* happens to be, they said it needs to be mandated that a group be forced to use sexbots; to protect another group.

That’s wrong. Are some (perhaps a large subset, maybe even a majority) abusive? Yep. But that’s no excuse for othering, and punishing, all of them.

And it’s a terrible precedent. It’s denying them an aspect of their humanity. What other atavisms will be declared to need massive interventions?

That I agree with the desired goal (keeping the abusers from preying on people) doesn’t change that the means are reprehensible.

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

They’re heterosexual assholes, yeah, we knew that…

Most people are, at least initially, attracted to what they think their partner is — whether that’s a stereotype, or a simple misunderstanding, or “OMGS we both love the same things!” Yeah, these guys are attracted to a fantasy view of women, and it’s a hurtful stereotype, but it takes time for any relationship to be about who the people really are. Even if that’s just the little things.

You certainly have a right to be offended by their views of women, but that doesn’t change the fact that they identify as heterosexual and that playing “I define what sexual orientations mean for other people” is royally fucked up.

Do I cease being poly and bi if I’m dating one person? Suddenly monogamous and straight/gay? How’s this work if we’re both genderqueer? (Damn you distance, ze’s all kiss of awesome! …and also poly and bi and thus I really am truly curious how this works in “define other people’s orientation” land)

LBT
LBT
8 years ago

Re: Argenti

what just occurred to me was that they want to “cure” you of Mac, which strikes me as an extra special kind of fucked up. (Not that curing you of Sneak, Gigi, etc wouldn’t be royally fucked up…)

Exactly. Also, the mythical ‘core’ person left town years ago, so we’d all have to go. But yes, I have no interest of being “cured” of my husband, my siblings, and myself. (I mean, besides all the ethical shit… you’ve worked in customer service. Tell me, what happens when suddenly everyone goes on vacation and you’re short-staffed? EVERYTHING GOES TO HELL!)

RE: Penny

As a woman I’m offended at being defined by someone who hates me for existing at the same time as insisting I exist only for their use. If they or you or anyone is offended by my defining that as *not* heterosexual, I can understand, but I also stand by my right to my own offense.

Ain’t nobody saying it’s not horrible and that you can’t be offended by that. But their perception of their orientation says absolutely nothing about you. It only defines THEM. Their assholery doesn’t define you, only them.

I mean, there are plenty of creepy trans chasers around, but I’m not about to tell them that they aren’t into trans people, even if they ARE waaaaay more interested in the fantasy in their head than me as a person. Their creepiness doesn’t define me at all.

Also, oh hey, guysguysguys, totally off-topic, but I accidentally am making a webcomic! 😀 Educational mental health via autobio, with the occassional douchey unicorn or Green Lantern joke and golem trivia! I’m so excited!

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“All kiss of awesome”

Freud was right >.< That should say all kinds, and I’m going to go sit in the corner of shame.

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“Exactly. Also, the mythical ‘core’ person left town years ago, so we’d all have to go. But yes, I have no interest of being “cured” of my husband, my siblings, and myself. (I mean, besides all the ethical shit… you’ve worked in customer service. Tell me, what happens when suddenly everyone goes on vacation and you’re short-staffed? EVERYTHING GOES TO HELL!)”

FTR, after much debating, my clinical psych TA decided that the “core person” (host) was the one presenting for treatment. So I guess you’d get to stay? Not that it matters other than as a pedantic note. And fuck, as much as he annoys me sometimes, being “cured” of my brother would suck, he does make a useful set of extra hands XD

Everything goes to hell is an understatement! When I was in tech/software licensing, as a student employee, I’d get calls asking if we had X software, and where it was. Like um, guys? It’s behind you, why do I know that but you don’t?

“Also, oh hey, guysguysguys, totally off-topic, but I accidentally am making a webcomic! Educational mental health via autobio, with the occassional douchey unicorn or Green Lantern joke and golem trivia! I’m so excited!”

All the w00ts! 😀

PennyDreadful
PennyDreadful
8 years ago

“Your point about heterosexuality I honestly don’t get. Surely a man can notice that he has an attraction to women, even if he has tons of fucked-up beliefs about them? All it takes to know that you’re attracted to X is to be fairly good at knowing when an X is around, and also recognise what attraction feels like. You don’t have to know shit about X to know that you’re attracted to X.”

Fair enough, I guess.

But again, what is the definition of “heterosexual”? Is it someone who is attracted to the opposite sex? Then what is the definition of that sex? The person who presents as that sex? Then what about non-cis heteros? Is it someone with the correct chromosomes? What about transgendered folks? This is actually a big issue for me, personally; I spent a large chunk of my youth physically attracted only to men I found out after the fact were gay, so what’s the correct term for who I was then? I’m really being rhetorical here. But again, if folks are taking offense at what I’m saying, I hope they’ll understand that I don’t find any of this so cut and dried.

And take the example of stalkers, or those with celebrity obsessions: who exactly is that person claiming to love? They don’t really know that actual person, the object of their affections is a complete fiction. So is their attraction valid? What validates attraction? Who gets to define who we are? If my definition is based on my definition of who I’m attracted to, and that definition is contrary to that person’s self-identity, who is at fault here?

PennyDreadful
PennyDreadful
8 years ago

“I think everyone assumed that when you first said “they’re not really hetero” you meant that they’re secretely attracted to other men, or secretely asexual. The reason being that these theories have been proposed before on Manboobz, and that’s pretty offensive to gays and aces.”

If you knew how slow my computer is loading, you’d forgive me for not going back to see exactly what I said. I *think* it was something like “it makes me wonder if they’re not really hetero” and I can see (especially based on how several people here have responded) how that sounded really insensitive. And I really am not an insensitive person, I just have strong opinions, tend to jump to conclusions (especially when exhausted), and a my brain is overdue for a brake-job : )

Again, my apologies.

cloudiah
8 years ago

I’m mostly lurking today because really busy but Rogan made me laugh with this:

(I mean, besides all the ethical shit… you’ve worked in customer service. Tell me, what happens when suddenly everyone goes on vacation and you’re short-staffed? EVERYTHING GOES TO HELL!)

And I am excited to hear about the webcomic, and hope you will share when it’s ready!

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

I’d have thought that heterosexual was the sort cut and dried of sexual orientations, but hey, it isn’t mine, so what do I know!

“I’m really being rhetorical here.” — yeah, that’s never stopped me, also, welcome to Spot That Fallacy!!

Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner’s agenda.

“But again, what is the definition of “heterosexual”? Is it someone who is attracted to the opposite sex?”

Yes, for cis people anyhow.

“Then what is the definition of that sex? The person who presents as that sex?”

Yes.

“Then what about non-cis heteros?”

Speaking from the genderqueer box over here, I don’t have an “opposite” sex. At a guess, for trans* people, ID’ing as heterosexual would indeed imply the opposite sex (from their post-transition gender // from the gender they identify as).

As for cis/non-cis relations, again, differs based on whether you mean binary trans* people, in which case there are trans* chasers as LBT said, and transphobic people, and people who’s sexual interest is focused on anatomy, but what they’d ID their relationship as is up to them. Doubly so for non-binaries (I’ve never met a non-bi/pan non-binary btw, though it seems entirely possible that one of us could be interested in only certain gender presentations)

“Is it someone with the correct chromosomes?”

Thanks for failing Transphobia Avoidance 101, please play again.

“What about transgendered folks?”

See above, if binary, then why the fuck couldn’t gay/straight apply based on the gender they ID as?

“This is actually a big issue for me, personally; I spent a large chunk of my youth physically attracted only to men I found out after the fact were gay, so what’s the correct term for who I was then?”

*refrains from snarking* um, attracted to some stereotype of gay men? Yeah, not touching any part of this one. Nor am I touch the celebrity question, as it’s both irrelevant, and in psych textbooks.

“If my definition is based on my definition of who I’m attracted to, and that definition is contrary to that person’s self-identity, who is at fault here?”

You, but that still doesn’t mean that other people get to apply a different label to you.

PennyDreadful
PennyDreadful
8 years ago

“Ain’t nobody saying it’s not horrible and that you can’t be offended by that. But their perception of their orientation says absolutely nothing about you. It only defines THEM. Their assholery doesn’t define you, only them.”

You know what? I’m very in a raw place right now from two relationships over the past several years where I was being defined by their assholery. And maybe explains the way I’m coming across to people here who barely know me.

And what you just said really really helps.

pecunium
8 years ago

If one is attracted to people of the opposite sex, and only of the opposite sex, I’d say they were hetero. It’s not important whom the objects of their interests like to fuck.

I’ve been attracted to a number of lesbians. What does that make me? Since I’m not attracted to men, it makes me heterosexual.

It doesn’t make the lesbians anything. They are what they are, independent of me.

There have been lots of gay men attracted to me. Some were of the opinion (because of whom I spent time with) that I was gay, until (often) I told them otherwise when they expressed interest.

They were still gay. I still wasn’t. Because orientation is internal. Yes, there are a lot of people who have a fantasy in their head about what the objects of their affections should be/actually are. A lot of MRAs (hell, most; perhaps all) fall into that category.

It makes them wrong. It often makes them more assholish than the MRM requires one to be. It doesn’t do a thing to change their sexual orientation/preference. It just means they are going to be disappointed when they find out they can’t easily find a woman who is as they have imagined her.

What validates attraction? Nothing. The question is better phrased, “What invalidates attraction?”. The answer to that (for me) is that it is 1: known, and 2: non-reciprocal.

Unknown attractions aren’t invalid on their face. I have been attracted to people I have not shared it with. Why? Because such a relationship was inappropriate. They were involved, and monogamous; or an employee/subordinate/boss, etc. Those were valid attractions, but unresolvable.

Non-reciprocal, that invalidates, automatically. So an unknown attraction which is known to be unreciprocated, invalid. One which is unknown, and might be reciprocated, might not be invalid.

LBT
LBT
8 years ago

RE: Argenti

FTR, after much debating, my clinical psych TA decided that the “core person” (host) was the one presenting for treatment. So I guess you’d get to stay? Not that it matters other than as a pedantic note.

This… this just makes me want to punch something. Who shows up for therapy is whoever has something to say, or whoever’s most competent to get us there! I might show up, or it might be Mir to explain something, or Sneak to celebrate something, or Mac because he’s mad about something. Plus, who the main fronter is has changed over the years! It’s arbitrary! Just–AAAAAAAAAAH WHY NO GODFUCK.

…I’ma just listen to Jason Webley for a bit now, and thank the gods I’ve always been in a position to self-advocate among the mental health community.

RE: PennyDreadful

Yeah, you might want to cool your heels a bit. Because I’m trans myself, and gay, and I know trans straight people, and your whole line of questioning just grates. Regardless of my chromosomes, my appearance to others, or whatever, I am a gay man. I am attracted to men. Not dick, not chromosomes, not a certain physical or emotional characteristic. MEN. (Well, man, but I’m not even getting INTO the ace bits right now.)

Just… please stop. Nobody defines their orientation except the holder of that orientation. If someone is attracted to me and mistakes me for a woman, they’re just plain WRONG. It doesn’t say jack about me.

cloudiah
8 years ago

@PennyDreadful, After reading more of the thread I’m going to second Rogan’s call to just stop. Do some more reading, both in the comments here and elsewhere, but otherwise just let it drop. Please.

PennyDreadful
PennyDreadful
8 years ago

“”So Penny, one of your points is that you don’t use the word “disease” as in making a medical diagnose, but as a synonym for “evil” or “bad”? I get what you’re saying, but it’s still a problematic way to express oneself. There’s this VERY common belief according to which mentally ill=evil and/or an idiot, and not mentally ill=good and/or rational and/or has mostly true beliefs about the world. And it’s very common to honestly attempt to diagnose people over the internet because of this belief. That’s why it’s problematic to use words like “disease” to mean evil or bad or moron, it feeds into this prejudice. I think it’s better to use straight-forward normative words rather than going to medical ones.”

A) I have personal reasons for not labeling depression, Asperger’s, ADHD, bipolar etc etc etc etc as illnesses unto themselves.

B) I don’t believe in evil, and I don’t believe in the Bad Seed myth.

Behaviours are “bad”, regardless of someone’s diagnosis or lack of one; conditions or “disorders” or “non-normativity” are dysfunctional only as they make someone’s function a daily problem even with “reasonable accommodation”. And I put in all those quotes because all these assessments are fluid and based on perception. Even the word “normative” is extremely relative, and to me extremely problematic.

I don’t think an MRA who is hateful towards women is evil; I also don’t think they are healthy. Hurting other people (against their consent) isn’t healthy. So what would be the “straight-forward normative word” for that?

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

LBT — sorry, I didn’t mean to upset you, just to say that from what I saw that wasn’t a question with an established answer. But yeah, duh whomevver’s talking is whomever has something to say. *returns to corner of shame*

LBT
LBT
8 years ago

So what would be the “straight-forward normative word” for that?

Asshole.

PennyDreadful
PennyDreadful
8 years ago

@Argenti, pecunium, LBT, that string of questions was meant to be rhetorical, ones I’ve questioned myself with, and not directed at a single person in this thread or anyone else. I’m not your enemy, for god’s sake.

@Cloudiah, clearly everything I’m saying is managing to piss off everyone here, so I’ll go find something constructive to do and end my completely unintentional derail.

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“I don’t think an MRA who is hateful towards women is evil; I also don’t think they are healthy. Hurting other people (against their consent) isn’t healthy. So what would be the “straight-forward normative word” for that?”

…asshole, the word you are looking for is asshole.

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

LBT — great min think alike? XD

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

*minds, I give up, I’m just going to take up residence in the corner of shame

PennyDreadful — yeah I got that it was rhetorical, except the very nature of airing rhetorical questions like that is a fallacy. One that, in this case, is harmful and hurts people. For example, the rhetorical nature of it didn’t make it not grating for LBT, trying to use the rhetorical nature of the questions as cop out to that is, at best, a failure to own up to what you said and implied. At worst your ignoring that is a sign that you’re just fine with rating LBT (which btw, will make you a lot of enemies around here real fast)

As for “I’m not your enemy” — I’m not saying you are — but much like one’s orientation, that’s for everyone else to decide (ie, everyone here, as individuals gets to decide whether or not you’re their enemy)

pecunium
8 years ago

I don’t see you as an enemy, but you asked the questions. If the answers are painful, well you asked the questions, in public, in response to other questions. They needed to be answered.

LBT
LBT
8 years ago

RE: PennyDreadful

I understand that you’re in a raw place right now, and that you may be feeling defensive. But these ‘rhetorical’ questions you mention are ones that I as a trans person have to deal with a LOT. They may be helpful for you, but they are not to me.

I re-emphasize that taking a break might be a good idea.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

Penny, I really don’t want to do a piling-on sort of thing here, but please be wary of talking about someone’s attraction being fictional or whatever. Yes, a celebrity obsession is a problem if it leads to stalking or harassment or whatever, but otherwise, so what? I also don’t think that has anything to do with whether it’s an opposite-sex attraction, same-sex or anything else.

I’m side-eyeing this part a little (not in the sense of being hurt, though) because I’ve copped a bit of this sort of “you’re living in a fantasy/ you’re delusional” shit. Mr K passed over more than 300 years ago, but that doesn’t change the fact that he is real, alive and we are very much in a married relationship. I leave it to your imagination how shitstains like to react to that, usually with internet diagnoses of mental illness. (Totally the opposite of the reaction of actual mental health professionals, I might add.) There was even a bizarre drive-by troll a couple of weeks back who thought he could needle me by saying my relationship with Mr K was necrophilia – quite how that works without a, you know, corpse being involved I have no idea – or something to do with rape culture.

He got royally taken down. 😉

If you want to see what our relationship really is [shameless self promotion] take a look at my blog [/shameless self promotion].

Anyways we all stuff up, I did just before with the IQ stuff. I’ve learned a lot I had no idea about before I started posting here and it’s helping me reassess some assumptions, including ones about myself.

@LBT – re: IQ jokes: gotcha. I like what you said about being understaffed and everything going to shit – oy, does it ever! Been there too many times.

And what Argenti said about “treatment” trying to get rid of Mac and leave Rogan behind – there’s a word for that, it’s murder.

And WHOOT about doing a web comic! Let us know when it’s up, please?

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

@Argenti – “kiss of awesome” was more like Pedestal of Greatness than Corner of Shame!

LBT
LBT
8 years ago

RE: Argenti and Kittehs

Sure! Right now, the issue is pretty much scannage, and teching. (Which unfortunately, I am unlikely to get to today.) The strips are all here, it’s just putting them online.

Also a weeding process; I started the comic because I injured my knee and needed SOMETHING I could do sedentary before losing my mind, but that means a few might pull people I know into the comic that don’t want to be. So some will get dumped.

Still, I’m so excited!

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

OMG there’s a Dickie Knee epidemic! Mine’s stuffed, one of the guys at work stuffed his playing soccer yest, now I hear you have …

HOBBLE FOR YOUR LIVES!

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

ABNOY — wtf makes you think we’ve all seen Wreck-It Ralph? And what in the everloving fuck is the relevance of this?

pillow in hell
pillow in hell
8 years ago

Abnoy, would you do me a favor and take your wanking fantasies elsewhere? I really don’t give a shit what your boner likes.

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Kitteh — lol, ok 🙂

*goes to pedestal of greatness*

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

Wreck-It Ralph hasn’t even opened here yet as far as I know, and guess what, I ain’t going to see it anyway.

katz
8 years ago

OMG there’s a Dickie Knee epidemic! Mine’s stuffed, one of the guys at work stuffed his playing soccer yest, now I hear you have …

HOBBLE FOR YOUR LIVES!

Assuming “stuffed” is Aussie for “ruined,” I stuffed mine on Saturday while hall monitoring. Turns out there’s a strict limit to how many times I can go down stairs.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

Ouch!

Stuffed is definitely ruined. Stairs are an absolute bastard when your knees are playing up.

So, it’s not just an epidemic, it’s a pandemic!

thenatfantastic
thenatfantastic
8 years ago

I’m getting in on the knee-hurt party. I sit cross-legged when I work. It’s not a good idea to do that for 8+ hours a day :/

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

Ouch again! Closest I can come to sitting cross-legged at all is doing glutes-stretching exercises in the morning. Oh the joys of age.

PennyDreadful
PennyDreadful
8 years ago

“As for “I’m not your enemy” — I’m not saying you are — but much like one’s orientation, that’s for everyone else to decide (ie, everyone here, as individuals gets to decide whether or not you’re their enemy)”

@Argenti, you just decided my orientation. You’ve decided I’m oriented toward being your enemy, which is far from the case. You can only decide whether you are *mine* or not, not how I feel towards you or anyone else here. You have also decided I am transphobic, which is completely untrue, even by anything I have posted here. Not being familiar, not understanding, not being aware of the social norm of a community (or thread), does not make one a bigot or ignorant or irrationally afraid. It just makes them awkward and pre-informed. Unintentional lack of etiquette on a public forum may make one unwelcome, but does not equate to prejudice. I can completely understand that those of you here who are regulars have become very protective of one another; be careful, when part of a group, to not assume everyone who doesn’t ease into that group without faux pas is an alien with ill intent.

I have not said one thing in this or any thread with the intention of hurting, insulting, offending or “rating” (I don’t know what that means, but if it’s “dismissing, insulting, marginalizing, invalidating, and mocking” then you are extremely mistaken) any of the regulars here. Lack of education or information is not ignorance; disagreement or difference of opinion or experience is not insult or lack of respect.

@Kitteh’s: thank you for the blog link, I’m looking forward to learning your story.

Peace out.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

You’re welcome, Penny. 🙂

Shadow
Shadow
8 years ago

*Has seen (and loved) Wreck-it Ralph. Remains as confused as those who haven’t*

Falconer
8 years ago

I, too, have seen and loved W. I. R., and I would recommend it to anyone (there is a moment near the end where someone is carried off against his will), but I’m not going to insist.

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“@Argenti, you just decided my orientation. You’ve decided I’m oriented toward being your enemy, which is far from the case. You can only decide whether you are *mine* or not, not how I feel towards you or anyone else here.”

Congrats, I hadn’t yet decided whether I saw you as an enemy, that right there? Now I’ve decided. Me, or anyone else here, seeing you as an enemy is nothing at all like deciding someone else’s sexual orientation. For starters, whether you’re “oriented towards being [my]” enemy is rather irrelevant to whether I see you as my enemy (I’ll get back to the nature of intent). For finishers, whether you see me as an enemy, and whether I see you as an enemy? Not the same thing, not seeing me as your enemy doesn’t magically get you out of having pissed me of.

“You have also decided I am transphobic, which is completely untrue, even by anything I have posted here.”

Actually, I said that focusing on chromosomes was transphobic, which since it was a rhetorical question, I had no way of knowing whether that was a factor in your partner selection, just that questioning chromosomes is failing Transphobia Avoidance 101.

“I have not said one thing in this or any thread with the intention of hurting, insulting, offending or “rating” (I don’t know what that means, but if it’s “dismissing, insulting, marginalizing, invalidating, and mocking” then you are extremely mistaken) any of the regulars here.”

It means I’m posting from my iPad and typo’ed ranting, which means exactly what it sounds like. That aside, intent, it’s fucking magic. That you continue to ignore that your questions grated on LBT’s (trans*) nerves, well, it isn’t helping make your case that your problem comes from simple naïveté.

You want to make friends here? Take the advice to take a break and come back to reply later (if at all). And for the love of all the gods, consider wtf you’re doing by ignoring inquiries into the transphobic nature of your questions coming from trans* and genderqueer people.

katz
8 years ago

@Argenti, you just decided my orientation. You’ve decided I’m oriented toward being your enemy, which is far from the case.

Dafuq?

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

That’s basically the one word version of my response to that, yes.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

Dafuq sounds like the name of an obscure desert kingdom on the Discworld …

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

be careful, when part of a group, to not assume everyone who doesn’t ease into that group without faux pas is an alien with ill intent.

This is so ‘splainy and assy. It’s true enough on it’s face, but you’re not exactly making it easy to like you. You’ve been assumptive, patronizing, and rude.

I highly recommend you dial it back a notch, go read old threads, and learn some 101 stuff elsewhere.

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Dafuq is a city on FAQ — http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/FAQ

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

“Pre-informed” may be the best euphemism for “ignorant” that I’ve ever heard, and I hear a lot of dumb euphemistic buzzwords at work.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

LOL Argenti, that page left me totally in the dark, since I’ve never heard of Erfworld or anything to do with it! Glad to see the name gets some use, though. 😀

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

“Misinformed” would be a better choice than “pre-informed” – the latter isn’t a word afaik, and implies the person has prior knowledge rather than assumptions.

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Erfworld’s a comic strip, with a bunch of puns (including the title). The kingdom of FAQ being one such pun, though the ORLY? owls might be my favorite. (I’d like to set a few loose on this thread actually, because O RLY?)

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

Owls are always good! 😀