📚 Megathread Tranny Sideshows on Social Media - Any small-time spectacle on Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter, Dating Sites, and other social media.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
OttoWest said:
View attachment 3206812
Ratios motherfucker, do you speak it?

I swear Colin is the dumbest man on twitter.
Click to expand...
Dear Katy.
Let it be known you are friends with CursedE, a known sex pest, who LOVES pissing on women's shoes and sniffing after teenage girls in changing rooms.

You are also friends with Christa Peterson, who has laughed at the rape of an orangutan when Anna Slatz brought up that case and the need for sex based care.

You supported Morgane Oger and his defunding of VRR, before deleting all your tweets in the hopes no one would ever connect you two.

Don't forget, your dumb fucking ass thought cells weren't sexed and that gametes OR genitalia has anything to do with sex determination. You always want to flee the UK if things don't go well for you.

What a fucking bastard.
 
Some Twitter content, since I'm a masochist:

Here's the word salad of the day:
1650670305167.png
1650670418776.png

This creature made a separate account for his "headmate":
1650670663334.png

Original tweet:
1650670743096.png
Replies:
1650670799824.png
What "Serah" looks like:
1650670860446.png
Forget him being an autistic tranny. Where is the emo??

Interesting @ but OK...
1650670988211.png

When you've faceapped your pores off the face of this Earth but faceapp doesn't have a feature for your massive fivehead and 5 o clock shadow:
1650671085646.png
In conclusion, there are no hot emo trannies on Twitter (I'm being generous).

Uhh yeah? There is no meaning to "woman" if retarded men can qualify themselves as such?
1650671628877.png
A perfect example in the replies of words losing meaning:
1650671720288.png

Only a man could go walking alone at night while wearing headphones :sighduck:
1650672462144.png

Huh... I wonder who the male is...
1650672566627.png
yOu cAN'T teLL
 
jumboseafood said:
Why are they all so ugly?
Click to expand...
When it comes to MTFs I see a few different categories: -

1. Obese, ugly, often balding, incredibly autistic/retarded. The type where you almost feel bad for laughing at them. Always hideous.

2. The green/blue hair type who look like they stink of B.O. and cat piss. Terrible dress sense. Often fat. Always hideous.

3. The older gent who's trooned out and is basically a 40+ year old man who's dressed as his idea of a slut circa 1970s. Your classic AGP. Just a total fucking laughing stock.

4. The younger troon that is riddled with narcissism and is delusional about their level of passing, often displaying misogyny towards actual women. Terminally online. Utterly obnoxious.
 
Phenax said:
I'll never understand why these people post their gynecomastia tits and amholes publicly on Twitter, but telling a doctor about said chemical/surgical alterations is "rarely ever relevant" - you're showing the rest of the world who did not ask, so why stop at those who do? You won't tell a medical professional for "safety reasons" but plaster every online surface you have with the troon flag? :lunacy:
Click to expand...
What they're posting on Twitter is just everyday pictures of them expressing their femininity or just regular girl talk about sex. But doctors are hateful bigots who invade peoples privacy and refuse to affirm their patients and give them what they need. If the doctor was interested in viewing their patients in order to best affirm them and help fast track them to life saving care it'd be one thing but doctors are constantly looking for something "wrong" with their patients which is just some perverted stalker shit. On Twitter you get helpful affirming feedback and maybe even useful medical advice while doctors will just gatekeep and gaslight you.
 
Canine with Fangs said:
This isn't true. The majority of agp trannies and many ftm tannies are actually above average intelligence. You have to be really in your own head to trick yourself into complex delusions, it's a qunitisennential trait of a midwit. Dumb people just think "yea a woman's a woman, stop talking to me weirdo".
Click to expand...
They aren't smart, IQ doesn't relate to smarts. IQ (or more correctly said EQ) doesn't correlate to a ratio of more than 50% on tasks similar to it, with lot's of failures and problems on these tasks.
The reason IQ relates to the SAT it's because it correlates to education around mathematical logic (which can be learned by the simple fact of learning how to use modern day math, which is just the activity of making instinctive math into a text format), vocabulary (which is education), some small parts of problem solving (which uses educative contexts) and things which need the understanding of metric definitions which are given at school.

Even the most fervent defenders of it say there's a correlation with education, even if it doesn't correlate with things like brain function or reaction (which again, can be learned, it's low correlation relates to the relation of most humans having 250ms and practicing to 200ms, thus 20%, even more when this depends on a lot of factors, increasing on old people where practice has a more important aspect around reaction time), this is the reason IQ correlates to a 100% to years of education, why it isn't less of 80 on all countries on real studies, why there's dudes who do shit choices even with a high iq and why it doesn't correlate to a physical aspect, why the test looks like a text you do at school and the reason they use two data points or less to correlate (which again, it's flawed, real studies, not psychology or clinical psychology (same shit), use 6 or more data points to correlate, having less means that you are doing statistics wrong or you are doing the study incorrectly), why people stop increasing their IQ after the final school years (18 and 25 years) and why the test shits the bed after a 100.

A high IQ (EQ) knows the rules, so it knows how to break them, a low IQ of around 80 to 100 (normal levels, less and it's real retardation or extreme malnutrition, 75 iq for example, africa has 81 iq to 84 iq on the more recent studies) doesn't have an education, so it will say the obvious shit like a woman not being a man. It's the over socialized midwit or delusional high EQ who will do false connections with his over education to lie about reality, he doesn't want to accept it, even if he knows the truth, so he closes down and tries to lie constantly to not recognize his own reality without any socialized aspects, always mantaining in a delusion which represents his destructive tendencies.
 
Last edited:
Luke gama said:
Sorry but can't think where else to ask. Does anyone have that site and Google pictures collection that's tranny's promising violence against terfs.

Thanks you can imagine if I asked this on any subreddit
Click to expand...

Not posting the links here because people signed into google will dox themselves if they click on them. But you can find the links here:

 
Canine with Fangs said:
Stopped reading, you're retarded.
Click to expand...
dude, look at this study:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29911926/
"we found consistent evidence for beneficial effects of education on cognitive abilities of approximately 1 to 5 IQ points for an additional year of education." (this is with 600,000 people, a lot more than a lot of IQ studies)
it doesn't relate to brain size and function (which has been investigated) too, it even makes sense by the way the test it's done, i say this as a dude who got 145 or more on mensa tests and got 150 on a lot of these shits (being autistic and doing them with new tests which you haven't done before increases the score)"
 
Haven't seen it posted here, and it isn't very funny, but Harvard disinvited Dr. Devin Buckley for crimes of wrong-think and she had a response that I found to be very well-written and searing. I'd seethe for days if someone sent me a response of this caliber :sighduck:

Dear Devin,
I have some bad news. As we were preparing the application for next year's funding, my co-coordinator looked you up on google to include the correct details about you on the application. She was surprised to find that your public profile is largely rooted in controversial issues regarding trans identity and that you're on the board of an organization that takes a public stance regarding trans people as dangerous and deceptive. Since you're mostly engaging in the public sphere as more of a polemicist than Romanticist, this puts the colloquium and the department and myself in an uneasy position.
My co-coordinator has refused to extend to you a formal offer to speak at our colloquium. I can't fight for you on this. I wasn't even aware of your online presence before Erin found it, and to be honest I didn't know this was so much a part of your public identity. Even if I were to push your visit past Erin, it will be near impossible to get our two faculty members to sign onto funding your visit once they learn of your online presence. Really, it's not so much because of your own personal conviction regarding trans identity. It's more about the public stance you've taken and how you've recently crafted a professional presence around these issues.
I'm so sorry we can't extend the formal invitation I promised you. You've done cutting-edge work in the study of Romanticism and religion. Maybe we can work out some other kind of engagement elsewhere in the future.
I'm willing to explain further about this if you want. I'm very sorry again.
Sincerely,
X
1650679463369.png

Dear X,
I understand that Harvard has forced you to be the bearer of bad news, namely that the panoptic power of Google has revealed me to be a dissident. I hold no grudge against you for this, since I assume you don’t necessarily approve of Harvard’s decision. You are still my friend and brilliant colleague. I won’t, of course, ask you to make your views explicit, lest you risk cancellation as well.
The news of my disinvitation to Harvard is disappointing, not only because I would have loved to give a lecture on poetry and philosophy, but because this is yet another instance of an elite university punishing (and misrepresenting) someone who questions fashionable far left dogma.
As you know, the lecture I was to give at Harvard had absolutely nothing to do with gender or feminism. It addressed esoteric philosophical matters in the Romantic movement. This is not a case of Harvard refusing to platform ideas it dislikes. This is a case of Harvard deplatforming me for political reasons entirely unrelated to my scholarship. As you mentioned in your email, I was of interest to Harvard for my “cutting-edge research,” not my women’s rights advocacy–and I had no intention of bringing up gender or feminism at a talk on the relevance of Plotinian Neo-Platonism and Vedic Philosophy to transcendent ontologies of early nineteenth century British poets.
No matter. If my talk had been on astrophysics I have no doubt that I would have received a similar email.
If it is unacceptable for me to speak at Harvard on British poetry and philosophy because I am a feminist, then I invite Harvard to purge its libraries and museums of all those who hold views unacceptable to Harvard. If I am to be silenced, then why do the tomes and treatises of history’s innumerable sexist, racist, homophobes still sit on Harvard’s hallowed shelves and continue to be cited with reverence? Harvard should cleanse them all and leave nothing but the purity of empty space.
It’s difficult to discern whether those who cancel feminists like me won’t or can’t understand us when we critique gender. My suspicion is that most people do not believe that a male can become female. They simply remain silent on the matter for the sake of their careers. I want to call them moral cowards, but I also have sympathy for those who must do this to survive, such as adjuncts who struggle to find non-academic jobs and continue to hang on desperately to exploitative part-time labor at wealthy universities which advertise themselves as bastions of social justice.
Your email disinviting me states that I am “on the board of an organization that takes a public stance regarding trans people as dangerous and deceptive.” This is a mischaracterization. Never has my organization, Women’s Liberation Front, made the claim that a person is dangerous simply because he or she identifies as trans. Rather, our organization opposes ideology and policy dangerous to women. This includes laws which allow males entry into women’s spaces on the basis of self-attested gender identity. This is happening right now in women’s prisons.
One of my iniquitous 4W articles reported on a New York bill that would allow males to be housed with women solely on the basis of self-attested gender identity. We are already seeing the results of similar policies in California, Washington, and New Jersey. In New Jersey, for example, one of the 27 convicted male transfers being housed in New Jersey’s Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women is a trans-identified male serving a 50-year sentence for the brutal murder of a sex trafficked immigrant woman. Additionally, two women at this facility are now pregnant through their association with another trans-identified male who goes by “Demi.” There have also been reports of assaults on women by males inWashington and California prisons.
WoLF and I have never claimed that someone is dangerous in virtue of being trans. Rather, we have claimed that some trans-identified males are dangerous in virtue of being predators. We have claimed that males in women’s prisons, for example, are a threat to women because they are violent males. WoLF has no issue with trans-identified females being housed in a women’s prison. Furthermore, one of our arguments against self-ID concerns the fact that self-attested gender identity is, by definition, unfalsifiable since it is grounded on a purely subjective experience and, therefore, may be abused by predatory males who would not otherwise identify as trans.
Since such nuance cannot be beyond Harvard’s intellectual caliber, I can only assume either that Harvard believes the abuses at women’s prisons are fake news or that Harvard believes such violence against women is in some way justified.
So much for the claim that WoLF believes trans persons are dangerous. As for the claim that we believe trans identity is deceptive, I can only say that we do believe it is deceptive to claim that a male is female.
I shouldn’t have to mention here that I have a degree in biology (neuroscience to be exact) but I will anyway just to drive the point home. Not only do I have a degree, but I attained highest honors in that degree and a record of straight A’s from cell biology through computational neuroscience, to say nothing of the fact that I studied human and animal genetics at Stuyvesant High School of Math and Science while working part-time in a microbiology lab at Columbia University. I am confident about my definition of a woman–an adult human female.
Unfortunately, my sense of reality and justice do not align with woke gender doctrine. I find it morally offensive to allow rapists, murderers, and otherwise violent men to declare themselves female and be imprisoned with women. Evidently, Harvard finds my objection morally offensive.
I have, as you say, crafted a professional presence around this issue, much of which has involved polemic. That does not, however, eclipse my scholarly achievements nor does it negate my passion for subjects other than feminism.
Why can I not be interested in both Platonism and feminism? Shelley was. Why can I not write in multiple genres, including polemic? Many of the authors we study did–and they faced severe repercussions for deviating from the norms of their day.
Considering that many scholars at Harvard and elsewhere are celebrated for their activism both within and without their scholarship, while I am condemned for it, it’s clear that the fact that I am an activist or a polemicist is not the issue, but what I am an activist about. Harvard has let me know that I cannot be a scholar of British Romanticism because I do not believe there are male women.
For my part, I’d rather be damned with the Romantics and Plato than go to woke heaven with Erin and the Harvard faculty.
Sincerely,
Devin Jane Buckley, Ph.D.
"I’d rather be damned with the Romantics and Plato than go to woke heaven with Erin and the Harvard faculty."
😳
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom