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

  • ⚙️ Performance issue identified and being addressed.
  • 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
T0oCoolFool said:
I mean, she was clearly pandering by making him suddenly gay. Remember, this came after the series had finished, and gay marriage was a hot topic issue, and this was a great way to get some free publicity. She acted all "surprised" when no one else realized he was gay, but it's such a load of bullshit, especially when you consider that she was already getting shat on by religious parents who saw her series as teaching witchcraft. If there was any hint of a gay character in it, those same nutty parents would have screamed about it years earlier. I don't buy that it was written in some "British" way and that the USA audience couldn't tell, because this reveal surprised everyone, not just the USA demographic.

Maybe she really did see Dumbeldore as gay when she wrote wrote the series, but she clearly knew that even hinting about it wouldn't be a smart move when she started publishing. It's not really that complicated. She wrote a book during a time when being gay wasn't socially acceptable, by the time she finished the series, that view had changed.
Click to expand...

IMO. She could very easily have written him seeing him as such the thing is he's just not flamboyantly so, it's another way the LGBT-insanity end up being a laughing stock. How does one write a character whose secondary and have them be gay while never having a situation come up where explicitly stating or showing that they are? You literally can't. The howling rainbows of online don't consider representation valid unless it's in your face, constantly. They don't want a character with depth who happens to be (________), they want a (__________) whose a character and whose defining attribute is implicitly linked to their gender/sexuality and that it's constantly being brought up. Half the time they scream for representation but the representation they want is a character written as a over the top stereotype otherwise they aren't being gay enough to actually be called representation. Subtly is lost on them.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Dumbledore can be gay, be true to his character, AND be a good gay character. It's no issue because there's never a reason for him to ever bring it up. Imagine shoehorning in a scene to hammer home the point that this 150 year old man likes to bang dudes, it would be incredibly skeevy and awkward given it's Harry's story. He's dealing with things far more important than his sexuality and he isn't the one whose story is being followed. He is a well written gay character for that reason. However because she didn't have him riding a rainbow broomstick, decked out in pride flag robes, dispelling glitter, and going Yasssssss! Witch slay! her mentioning of it makes it 'pandering' and 'appealing to the left wingnuts'.
 
Last edited:
horsegirl666 said:
Why do you get mad about me telling how it actually happened? And back in 2007 when this stuff happened sjw movement didn't even exist as it is today. What pandering points do you think you got from making character gay back then? Damn zoomers

Rewriting history to suit your own agendas is annoying even when it wasn't the trannies doing it.
Click to expand...
In 2007 the SJW movement wasn't around, but gay pandering was pretty hip. Gay stuff started getting popular in the early 2000's with shows like Queer Eye, at least in the USA. Legalize gay marriage is a phrase I recall hearing often.

That being said, I agree people are making way too big of a deal about the Dumbledore is gay thing. It could be pandering or it could be an attempt to show that gays are normal people and taking it up the poopchute doesn't have to be their entire personality.
 
Lurk said:
Fuck, took too long fishing out hideous troons and got ninja'd
Opened up transpassing for my evening guffaw at troons, and saw this honestly unremarkable picture with an interesting title:View attachment 1310095
Who knew that "laughing at ugly trannies" = doxxing.
Given the presence of a choker and the fried/thinning hair, I'm guessing this one is a guy but fuck knows.

Anyway, some more beauties
View attachment 1310108
View attachment 1310112
Burn it

View attachment 1310114
View attachment 1310119
View attachment 1310120 :story:
View attachment 1310121
View attachment 1310126
Fucking hell lmaoooo
View attachment 1310129
The dong certainly isn't helping, my mans
View attachment 1310133
View attachment 1310137
"Feeling euphoric with a face mask" :story: Also, how is this guy only 26?!
View attachment 1310138
View attachment 1310143
You need to put the hat back on, that's one hell of an eighthead
Click to expand...
‘No makeup do I pass?’ No, you don’t. Why do they do this? If you’re a troon, wouldn’t you want to be wearing a full face all the time?
 
horsegirl666 said:
Why do you get mad about me telling how it actually happened? And back in 2007 when this stuff happened sjw movement didn't even exist as it is today. What pandering points do you think you got from making character gay back then? Damn zoomers

Rewriting history to suit your own agendas is annoying even when it wasn't the trannies doing it.
Click to expand...
Can you give us your name and address, so we can send you some free literature?!
 

Attachments

  • 1590101741996.png
    1590101741996.png
    939.3 KB · Views: 159
remiem said:
IMO. She could very easily have written him seeing him as such the thing is he's just not flamboyantly so, it's another way the LGBT-insanity end up being a laughing stock. How does one write a character whose secondary and have them be gay while never having a situation come up where explicitly stating or showing that they are? You literally can't. The howling rainbows of online don't consider representation valid unless it's in your face, constantly. They don't want a character with depth who happens to be (________), they want a (__________) whose a character and whose defining attribute is implicitly linked to their gender/sexuality and that it's constantly being brought up. Half the time they scream for representation but the representation they want is a character written as a over the top stereotype otherwise they aren't being gay enough to actually be called representation.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Dumbledore can be gay, be true to his character, AND be a good gay character. It's no issue because there's never a reason for him to ever bring it up. Imagine shoehorning in a scene to hammer home the point that this 150 year old man likes to bang dudes, it would be incredibly skeevy and awkward given it's Harry's story. He's dealing with things far more important than his sexuality and he isn't the one whose story is being followed. He is a well written gay character for that reason. However because she didn't have him riding a rainbow broomstick, decked out in pride flag robes, dispelling glitter, and going Yasssssss! Witch slay! her mentioning of it makes it 'pandering' and 'appealing to the left wingnuts'.
Click to expand...

For the record, I don't care of Dumbledore is gay or not. I see the debate broken up into two main camps: Either you think she sucks because she didn't make Dumbledore a loud gay leather daddy, or you think people are overreacting because there is no way to make a non-obtrusive gay character in a children's book. I think both arguments are bad, especially the latter, because it really isn't hard to write a gay character in a subtle way.

J.K. Rowling showed both main characters and secondary characters having crushes, experiencing sexual tension, and building new romantic relationships without ever getting vulgar about it. J.K. Rowling could have easily done the same thing with Dumbledore. She could have done something like, make Dumbledore have photo on his desk of a dead husband that he mentions in passing, or someone could passively mention that Dumbledore dated some other professor back in his youth and that's why it's awkward between them, etc. There are tons of possibilities and ways to mention it without losing focus of the story or making it an SJW cringe fest. I would consider anyone who claims they can't write a gay character without it being loud and vulgar to be a bad writer.

That being said, I still maintain that this was nothing more than a publicity stunt, especially given the timing. People seem to forget that there was lots of bitching about the final book. There were lots of complaints that it was boring (Half the book was focused on being stuck in a forest), it felt rushed, and the ending was very cliche and underwhelming.

edit: clarity.
 
Last edited:
Lurk said:
Fuck, took too long fishing out hideous troons and got ninja'd
Opened up transpassing for my evening guffaw at troons, and saw this honestly unremarkable picture with an interesting title:
Who knew that "laughing at ugly trannies" = doxxing.
Given the presence of a choker and the fried/thinning hair, I'm guessing this one is a guy but fuck knows.

Anyway, some more beauties


Burn it


View attachment 1310120 :story:


Fucking hell lmaoooo

The dong certainly isn't helping, my mans


"Feeling euphoric with a face mask" :story: Also, how is this guy only 26
You need to put the hat back on, that's one hell of an eighthead
Click to expand...

This post is why aliens don't visit us, and makes God cry.

I regret entering this thread and I shall never return.
 
Lurk said:
Fuck, took too long fishing out hideous troons and got ninja'd
Opened up transpassing for my evening guffaw at troons, and saw this honestly unremarkable picture with an interesting title:View attachment 1310095
Who knew that "laughing at ugly trannies" = doxxing.
Given the presence of a choker and the fried/thinning hair, I'm guessing this one is a guy but fuck knows.

Anyway, some more beauties
View attachment 1310108
View attachment 1310112
Burn it

View attachment 1310114
View attachment 1310119
View attachment 1310120 :story:
View attachment 1310121
View attachment 1310126
Fucking hell lmaoooo
View attachment 1310129
The dong certainly isn't helping, my mans
View attachment 1310133
View attachment 1310137
"Feeling euphoric with a face mask" :story: Also, how is this guy only 26?!
View attachment 1310138
View attachment 1310143
You need to put the hat back on, that's one hell of an eighthead
Click to expand...
The 26 year old and the 19 year old. What makes them age so fast!?
 
T0oCoolFool said:
For the record, I don't care of Dumbledore is gay or not. I see the debate broken up into two main camps: Either you think she sucks because she didn't make Dumbledore a loud gay leather daddy, or you think people are overreacting because there is no way to make a non-obtrusive gay character in a children's book. I think both arguments are bad, especially the latter, because it really isn't hard to write a gay character in a subtle way.

J.K. Rowling showed both main characters and secondary characters having crushes, experiencing sexual tension, and building new romantic relationships without ever getting vulgar about it. J.K. Rowling could have easily done the same thing with Dumbledore. She could have done something like, make Dumbledore have photo on his desk of a dead husband that he mentions in passing, or someone could passively mention that Dumbledore dated some other professor back in his youth and that's why it's awkward between them, etc. There are tons of possibilities and ways to mention it without losing focus of the story or making it an SJW cringe fest. I would consider anyone who claims they can't write a gay character without it being loud and vulgar to be a bad writer.

That being said, I still maintain that this was nothing more than a publicity stunt, especially given the timing. People seem to forget that there was lots of bitching about the final book. There were lots of complaints that it was boring (Half the book was focused on being stuck in a forest), it felt rushed, and the ending was very cliche and underwhelming.

edit: clarity.
Click to expand...
Ok can you guys take this discussion to a different thread? Whether Dumbledore is gay, and whether JK Rowling made him gay for woke points has nothing to do with trannies reeing, even if they're reeing over JK Rowling.
 
You just know that if these guys weren't trannies they would be the creepy guys who walk way too close behind you in a grocery store and breathe heavily. The creepy uncle population must have taken a huge loss because of this trend.
 
horsegirl666 said:
You just know that if these guys weren't trannies they would be the creepy guys who walk way too close behind you in a grocery store and breathe heavily. The creepy uncle population must have taken a huge loss because of this trend.
Click to expand...
Every dark cloud has a silver lining, after all.
 
Lurk said:
View attachment 1310129
The dong certainly isn't helping, my mans
Click to expand...

This bikini troon is more proof this is just a fetish. A real fear for women wearing any type of bathing suit is that it may be too tight and give them a camel toe, or the material will be too thin and show their vagina after they get out of the pool. Real women would be absolutely mortified if they saw a picture of themselves with their vagina on clear display. Not troons though. They're proud of their dick bulge.

edit: I just looked more into this guy's post, he's definitely something else. Not only is his bulge on display, but in the reddit thread, the image is bigger and you can see his pubic hair is hanging out. Again, another thing real women would be mortified about.

Also, he's 6'8 :O
 
Last edited:
horsegirl666 said:
You just know that if these guys weren't trannies they would be the creepy guys who walk way too close behind you in a grocery store and breathe heavily. The creepy uncle population must have taken a huge loss because of this trend.
Click to expand...
Corn Flakes said:
Every dark cloud has a silver lining, after all.
Click to expand...
Thank you Jesus. It's like a warning sign saying "stay away!"
 
Crunchy Leaf said:
‘No makeup do I pass?’ No, you don’t. Why do they do this? If you’re a troon, wouldn’t you want to be wearing a full face all the time?
Click to expand...
Because they get off on making people tell them they look good.

The number of men who troon out and expect to pass without makeup is astronomical. It just goes to show how little these males actually know about being a female and feeling the pressure to wear makeup every day.
 
homewayhalf said:
Because they get off on making people tell them they look good.

The number of men who troon out and expect to pass without makeup is astronomical. It just goes to show how little these males actually know about being a female and feeling the pressure to wear makeup every day.
Click to expand...
‘Pressure to wear makeup’ is very cultural. If you’re a troon at a nice liberal university who hangs out with other weirdos, a lot of your female friends won’t wear makeup very much. But they don’t realize, somehow, probably because of autism, that a woman who wears no makeup and cargo pants will still be seen a woman because she’s female.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom