📚 Megathread Trannies posting their L's Online - Heckin valid people posting their funny misfortunes on the internet

  • 🏰 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
The unintended side effect of bodycams making people side more with the cops is honestly pretty funny.

You really wanna tickle your Judge Dredd nerve a bit, watch some sovereign citizen arrest videos.
This was actually the bigggest L that Democrats ever did and it's something I supported as well, their intention was to have cops shoot niggers/randos less but the cameras basically emboldened cops because lawyers and political groups would now not be able to turn nebulous he-said/she-said situations into ragebait monetary grifts and cops felt more confident with cameras displaying how they were handling the situation which upticked nigger/rando shootings because surprise surprise cops are society's tard wranglers and most of our tards are violent reprobates which require proportional violence to handle.
 
Armed sailboat trannies crash out:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=S1S7r5NuUQc:story:
They got all sexual and gross towards the end, they really can’t help but be disgusting.
IMG_5122.webp
YES
IMG_5125.webp
IMG_5126.webp
IMG_5127.webp
10/10 video no notes
IMG_5128.webp
Like Kim K? 😂
 
“I have spent decades squandering social and health services because I decided to be a man in a frock, but my life is still miserable! All the name and sex changes I had to go through to be my real self haven’t been enough! This is all the British government’s fault, of course.”

Cool story, bro

IMG_2565.webp
IMG_2566.webp
IMG_2567.webp

I want to explain a few things and then it might be clearer why UK trans people are upset.

In 2001 I married my wife, Sylvia.

In 2005 I started medical transition. For the state to recognise this I had to submit to standards of "care" which were humiliating, degrading and which placed me at risk of violence.

But I did it "by the book"

As I did it "by the book", the NHS agreed to reregister me as female, which makes sense because my anatomy now is.

In 2007 I had sex reassignment surgery. This had to be signed off by two mental health professionals, "by the book", and it was.

In 2008 I applied for gender recognition. This involved signing a statutory obligation, stating that I promised, BY LAW, to live fully as female for the rest of my life. As this was done, "by the book", the government promised that it would treat me as such.

Its first act as treating me as female was to annul our marriage because it was a same sex marriage and those were not allowed.

The state then reissued my birth certificate, correcting the "mistake" it had originally made when it recorded me as male, "by the book".

In 2009 Sylvia and I married for the second time, in a same sex civil partnership, which was done "by the book", because the state regarded me as female and I was bound by law to be female.

In 2013 we married again, because the state decided that same sex marriage was in fact allowed after all. This was done, "by the book". Despite having been married for 12 years, we had to submit ourselves to individual questioning to prove our relationship was genuine, "by the book".

In April of 2025 the state turned round and told me that I had been mistaken. That it never regarded me as female. That I was male the whole time. That the marriage it annulled because it was a same sex marriage was never a same sex marriage (but it stays annulled). That the civil partnership in 2009 never really happened because "opposite sex" civil partnerships were not allowed in 2009.

And that the legal obligation I have to live as female for the rest of my life, which I signed and gave up my marriage for, is still in effect but also if I keep following it, I am breaking the law and subject to arrest. As it's still valid, presumably if I don't keep following it, I am also breaking the law and subject to arrest.

The law of the land simultaneously requires me to be both a man and a woman and if I do either then I am breaking the law and subject to arrest.

At every stage I did what the state asked me to, even though it was humiliating, degrading and cruel.

And it kept moving the goalposts, and reneging on the agreements it made, whilst continuing to hold me to them even when they are now mutually contradictory.

Apparently this is "all my fault" and I should have known that this would be the consequences of my actions when I started medical transition 2 decades ago.

Perhaps you can now appreciate why we are upset?
 
In the US, if you are not coming to the hospital explicitly to be stopped from suicide, reconsider the amount of honesty you wish to use when they ask if you've ever thought about it.
It’s pointless saying yes.
They got all sexual and gross towards the end, they really can’t help but be disgusting.
View attachment 7856274
YES
View attachment 7856294
View attachment 7856295
View attachment 7856296
10/10 video no notes
View attachment 7856320
Like Kim K? 😂
It’s like when you see a cat that’s got wet and the structure under the fur is revealed. It’s not like they passed dry, but wet they are even funnier. Soaked down we have craggy men. The craggiest of craggy male skulls. Hilarious
 
In 2005 I started medical transition. For the state to recognise this I had to submit to standards of "care" which were humiliating, degrading and which placed me at risk of violence.

I can’t comment on the standards of care, or whether they were humiliating.
I would hazard a guess that this guy thought they were humiliating because it wasn’t exactly what he wanted immediately.
The alleged risk of violence however?

Mild PL, I lived in the UK at that time, in a few different towns and cities.
While not being a troon myself, I was always in social/music scenes which they were drawn to.
The risk of violence as far as I could tell wasn’t especially higher than for any other male who chose to break social norms.
You just use common sense.

Don’t go to areas which the local population might be curious or confused by your attire, unless you have to.
Avoid attention from particular groups of men, I mean football hooligan adjacent lads for instance were likely to make comments on a man in a dress while they were drinking a few beers in a wetherspoons or other low priced pub.
Even then, if you walked away, sure they would laugh, but so what? Why get your head kicked in?

Ignoring them probably would work as 97% of the time if they don’t get a reaction, they get bored and forget about you.
But it would be a stupid fucking move to call them Nazis and that you are a real woman.
These kinds of guys were actually easily avoided if you went to bars they didn’t tend to drink in, or just kept away from where they were in the bar.

Perhaps sexually motivated violence would be an increased risk, as sure, at night a creep out for a woman to rape might not know the difference until too late, but……don’t walk home alone in the dark!
Which is generally good advice for anyone, people still get mugged or fall foul of some twat who wants to beat someone up for their own reasons.

This can happen to anyone.

Granted there were and are people with a screw loose who do want to beat up other people for doing something they don’t like.
But even in the case of football lads, 99% they don’t actually want to beat up a man in a dress, they just want to laugh and have some jollies at someone else’s expense.
The problem is, is if said man in a dress tries to retaliate verbally, the Rules Of Manly Conduct still apply, so the football lad has to rise to the challenge.
And a football lad doesn’t want to look like a ponce scared of some poofter in a dress in front of his mates.

It’s not a case of live like a pussy, it’s a case of avoid unnecessary trouble.
 
It’s pointless saying yes.

It’s like when you see a cat that’s got wet and the structure under the fur is revealed. It’s not like they passed dry, but wet they are even funnier. Soaked down we have craggy men. The craggiest of craggy male skulls. Hilarious

Those lumpy skulls would be a phlebotomist's dream.
 
At every stage I did what the state asked me to, even though it was humiliating, degrading and cruel.
At every stage, it was also plainly obvious that the "state" was making up unworkable accommodations in order to pander to the widespread lies and deliberate misinterpretation of the law by organizations such as Stonewall.

Anyone with half a brain could see how crazy this was, yet you, and others like you, decided to jump in with both feet to try and make your mundane little lives appear to be more interesting.

You created your own issues by your own stupidity and that is now your problem, not ours.
 
At every stage, it was also plainly obvious that the "state" was making up unworkable accommodations in order to pander to the widespread lies and deliberate misinterpretation of the law by organizations such as Stonewall.

Anyone with half a brain could see how crazy this was, yet you, and others like you, decided to jump in with both feet to try and make your mundane little lives appear to be more interesting.

You created your own issues by your own stupidity and that is now your problem, not ours.
And, Crumpetlanders feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the ruling is that it doesn't annul gender identity changes, it simply makes a sex at birth relevant to things like single-sex spaces and sports, basically anywhere where access is restricted based on a legal definition of sex. There are still protections for transitioned individuals, it's just that you don't get access to everywhere that cis woman does. Why is access to those spaces so important to your existence as a "woman"? Is peeing in the woman's washroom really such an essential part of your womanhood that not being there makes you a man?

That's why all the marriage stuff is especially stupid, it's not retroactively changing anything, it's saying that for the purposes of legal definitions, there are times when discriminating between cis and trans women is necessary to protect the rights of cis women, a workable compromise if there ever was one. All this shit only works as arguments on the premise that total trans acceptance is the pinnacle of human progress. We know the endpoint, and it is sucking the girldick. Any attempt to balance anything against that is oppression.
 
Last edited:
And, Crumpetlanders feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the ruling is that it doesn't annul gender identity changes, it simply makes a sex at birth relevant to things like single-sex spaces and sports, basically anywhere where access is restricted based on a legal definition of sex. There are still protections for transitioned individuals, it's just that you don't get access to everywhere that cis woman does. Why is access to those spaces so important to your existence as a "woman"? Is peeing in the woman's washroom really such an essential part of your womanhood that not being there makes you a man?

That's why all the marriage stuff is especially stupid, it's not retroactively changing anything, it's saying that for the purposes of legal definitions, there are times when discriminating between cis and trans women is necessary to protect the rights of cis women, a workable compromise if there ever was one. All this shit only works as arguments on the premise that total trans acceptance is the pinnacle of human progress. We know the endpoint, and it is sticking the girldick. Any attempt to balance anything against that is oppression.
Sarah Brown was posting on the internet in the early 2000s as Auntie Sarah and pushing into women’s communities on Livejournal to moan about his plights and humiliations almost like he gets off on it. A friend had a run in with him decades ago. A pioneering AGP still beating his drum for kicks and attention.
 
And, Crumpetlanders feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the ruling is that it doesn't annul gender identity changes, it simply makes a sex at birth relevant to things like single-sex spaces and sports, basically anywhere where access is restricted based on a legal definition of sex. There are still protections for transitioned individuals, it's just that you don't get access to everywhere that cis woman does. Why is access to those spaces so important to your existence as a "woman"? Is peeing in the woman's washroom really such an essential part of your womanhood that not being there makes you a man?

That's why all the marriage stuff is especially stupid, it's not retroactively changing anything, it's saying that for the purposes of legal definitions, there are times when discriminating between cis and trans women is necessary to protect the rights of cis women, a workable compromise if there ever was one. All this shit only works as arguments on the premise that total trans acceptance is the pinnacle of human progress. We know the endpoint, and it is sucking the girldick. Any attempt to balance anything against that is oppression.

You are correct.
One of the things that almost no one knows about the Gender Recognition Act 2004 is that it made an exception for inheritance and succession.


15

79.This provides that the fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender does not affect the distribution of property under a will or other instrument made before the day on which the Act comes into force. For wills or other instruments made after that day, the general principle stated in section 9(1) will apply, e.g. if a will refers to the ‘eldest daughter’, and a person who was previously a son becomes the ‘eldest daughter’ following recognition in the acquired gender, that person (subject to section 18) will inherit as the ‘eldest daughter’.

Funny how apparently this law magically worked to change a person's sex completely and magically - oh, except for where that would have disadvantaged wealthy and/or aristocratic men.

Utter cunts, the lot of them.
 
“That’s not what real trans women look like”
1756744856082.webp

I’ve been seeing a lot of pro-trans posts recently on various social medias showing like “real trans women” versus the trans women that Republicans depict in their media. And like… ughhhhhh. I know it’s shitty, but when I see those posts, I look in the mirror, and I look like the horrible offensive 4chan and conservative depictions of what trans women look like. I don’t look like the younger beautiful trans women and it makes me feel like the community is divided into the girls that are all in polycules and stuff and the girls that can’t stand their own reflection. I feel like I’m being left behind by activism and the small modicum of progress that exists. We don’t all look like Hunter Schafer. Some of us see those cartoons being made of us and don’t laugh it off as being unrealistic because it’s what we look like. I can’t stop crying. Idk. I need to just accept myself, but it’s so hard when it feels like no one accepts you.
Oh dear.

1756745416611.webp

Oh dear dear dear.


Armed sailboat trannies crash out:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=S1S7r5NuUQc
:story:

1756745997643.webp
 
Last edited:
If only Henry the 8th knew about this trick.
TT:
View attachment 7858242
Even the people in the Facebook group are laughing at him.
And, Crumpetlanders feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the ruling is that it doesn't annul gender identity changes, it simply makes a sex at birth relevant to things like single-sex spaces and sports, basically anywhere where access is restricted based on a legal definition of sex. There are still protections for transitioned individuals, it's just that you don't get access to everywhere that cis woman does. Why is access to those spaces so important to your existence as a "woman"? Is peeing in the woman's washroom really such an essential part of your womanhood that not being there makes you a man?

That's why all the marriage stuff is especially stupid, it's not retroactively changing anything, it's saying that for the purposes of legal definitions, there are times when discriminating between cis and trans women is necessary to protect the rights of cis women, a workable compromise if there ever was one. All this shit only works as arguments on the premise that total trans acceptance is the pinnacle of human progress. We know the endpoint, and it is sucking the girldick. Any attempt to balance anything against that is oppression.
I hate how trannies have made the UK look like a great place. “TERF Island” sounds like paradise, but in actuality it’s a shithole where you get raped and killed by Muslims.
 
women can't piss in bottles like men do, because you don't have a dick
Some women have better control over those muscles and can pee in a straight stream. It just takes practice. It's kind of like how some men have control over their pec muscles.
Source: Read some hiker's blog years ago and she got very TMI
 
Some guy was feeling really down, he struggled with some classes and he felt trapped because the student debt was too high to back out and leave without a diploma/start over. He went to the student psychologist to talk about his struggles, and she asked if he ever felt suicidal. He said yes. Turns out psychologists are responsible if they let someone with suicidal thoughts go and they rope (same with someone making credible threats to another person's life, they can break confidentiality for that). As soon as she heard that, she instantly changed tone and called the police to take him into protective custody. He had to pay for the trip+cell.
Can confirm. If you mention to any authority figure that you have suicidal thoughts, they will literally call the cops or security. Don't tell other people about this stuff unless you actually plan to end your life (and in that case, get help).
 
Can confirm. If you mention to any authority figure that you have suicidal thoughts, they will literally call the cops or security. Don't tell other people about this stuff unless you actually plan to end your life (and in that case, get help).
There is a seed of truth to this, Nurses, Doctors, Therapists etc have a responsibility for the welfare of people, legally it's called being a mandatory reporter, if someone said "I am going to kill myself", and they believed the threat was credible, they might call the police, but if someone said "I am having thoughts about suicide" I can't imagine a scenario where they would taken into custody. Especially if they person was committed to future appointments with them or other healthcare providers. Quite the opposite, if you were detained for expressing a very dark sentiment that most people will feel at some point in their life, I believe the Reporter would find themselves in legal hot water.

I know the pendulum has swung waaaay off balance into crazyland, but people still have mental health issues, and if it happens to you, it's your duty to go to a Doctor and get yourself well. It's not black magic, like everything else in life, 9/10ths of it is basic common sense.
 
Can confirm. If you mention to any authority figure that you have suicidal thoughts, they will literally call the cops or security. Don't tell other people about this stuff unless you actually plan to end your life (and in that case, get help).
Suicidal thoughts aren't the same as ideation and plans, he must have told them something more that "yeah, sometimes I think about ending it".

Think of it like a threat to someone else "sometimes I think about killing people" is not a credible threat the police would (or at least should) take action on. Add a few details time/place/location/target/motive/weapon that's when it becomes a credible threat.
 
Back
Top Bottom