Vanessa's Tranny AMA Blog Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
I do not! More than happy to have a refresher if you'd like to do the leg-work. I'm more stunned reading that the Iranian government condones trannies and sex-changes at all in their country over allowing said trannies to play soccer. I thought they were more keen on chopping off our heads instead of our dicks... you learn something new every day!

I said the Olympics after this one, if you don't see some dramatic shift, we'll most likely see lower tier teams more desperate for a win fielding transexuals--which will force a response in the subsequent Olympics. That I expect female sports to essentially become "transexual" sports relatively soon, within a decade (Again, if society maintains its current course). You said that was unlikely, wouldn't happen.

Just keep you apprised.


As far as trannies in sports... don't look at me, look at yourselves (and the LGBT community themselves). Y'all are the ones who condemn early transitioning (and the LGBT community condemns scientific research into legit Gender Dysphoric trannies). If EVERY tranny born was transitioned right at puberty, the societal problem of us physically superior women trannies with our manly bodies competing in women's athletics would dry up. But nooooo, keep virtue signaling that transition should happen as an adult, right? Fine, then keep getting Ursula the Czech tranny smashing your women's shot-put records and making Brittney the biological female feel useless as a woman shot-putter, I don't give a shit.

Actually, since we last spoke I've done kind of a deep dive on genetics and heritability. My position against any kind of hormone replacement or cessation for children is now even more firm. The literature illustrating the problems from such things is immense and the efficacy is not at all established well. The arguments against the 80% resolution, such as the classification quibbling over gender non-conforming and dysphoric are relatively weak (Mainly because it leaves the corroborating group as tiny without long term efficacy.)

In addition, the overall efficacy doesn't seem really there, the study into the actual cellular and biochemical effects is just non-existent, its all broader physiology. For example, your assertion here is that if you transition younger there will be no difference...Except, that's also not true. While it is true that there will be LESS of a difference if puberty is blocked(And I said so last time) , there are differences in phenotype expression and hormonal uptake at the cellular and genetic level which will never be changed, ever. Even if you wash these cells in alternate hormones, they react differently and express their genetic information differently.


Of course, this is FoH and I can already hear the collective groans and grumbles echoing through the thread! LoL "OR WE COULD JUST FORCE TRANNIES OUT OF SPORTS; PROBLEM SOLVED". Yeah, problem solved; in your internet clown world. In the real world, however, some trannies might want to compete and have fun in sports just like anyone else out there, and that's their right to do so as human beings. <--- this is what the LGBT community is good for; ensuring equality. Of course, like any radical group, they go too far though, but that's another post and another topic. I've already waxed poetic about my disdain toward the LGBT community, no need to rehash right now.

Disabled people might want to compete in sports, too. Think we should let a paraplegic with a couple tesla engines on his wheel chair into various running competitions? How about a man that just wants to take hormones?

There are limitations on sports already. Competing in a sport is not a human right. If its acceptable to limit males from enhancing themselves, or limit women's leagues to under X testosterone and he exclusion of males, then there should be no issue with accepting transgender people can't compete. We accept the exclusion of groups all the time. For some reason its oppression here. Why? If you can't ensure fairness, which you can't because at the cellular, biochemical level there are major differences, then exclusion is the best way to maintain fairness.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,964
Ya, you're right. You don't discuss or argue, you just pop in to say "lol ur stooped" any time it is mentioned anywhere.
If this is directed at me then you are stupid if you think what you said is correct. It is very easy to go to the pertinent thread and read the discussion that has taken place with people that are willing to have an actual discussion. Just because I dont bother discussing things with retards doesnt mean it hasnt been discussed. Vanessa is just a moron that showed inability and unwillingness to understand the topic and therefore it is not worth wasting time on anything other than calling him names.
 
  • 1Picard
Reactions: 1 user

Siliconemelons

Avatar of War Slayer
10,848
15,270
Show me where anyone on the science side here made any claim as to the explanation of creation? The only people arguing anything about creation are creationists.

...

...

umm

soo... if the "how things originated/where created" is the only crux... and we say "God did it" and you say "we dont know what did it"

then in reality everything else is just as I described.

We found out X is the smallest thing!
Oh wait! Y is, wow that's cool - wonder what we will discover next!

vs

We found out X is the smallest thing!
Oh wait! Y is, wow God is amazing in His creation! Cant wait to find out more about it!

so...

again... based on your statement... there should be no conflict between "normal" scientists and creationist scientists.

Heck there are even evolutionary creationists...

There are essentially 2 pet peeves that "science" has against creationism.

Time and Origin.

You just dismissed origin, so time is your next one.

Next time.

None of the ways we "date" things is fully without anomaly or any other thing that really puts it all to shame.

Heck the silly London Hammer...

Look a hammer in 400 million year old rock! It must be from some vising ancient civilization - NO! it is from "the lost civilization" - no its from the pre-flood era and proves giants!

No wait...its some random hammer someone dropped and it got encased in broken up or dissolved old rock, its not really encased in "old rock" it is simply encased in "new rock" and took some of itself from the old rock.

OR

"dating" stuff is just wrong.
 

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,964
...

...

umm

soo... if the "how things originated/where created" is the only crux... and we say "God did it" and you say "we dont know what did it"

then in reality everything else is just as I described.

We found out X is the smallest thing!
Oh wait! Y is, wow that's cool - wonder what we will discover next!

vs

We found out X is the smallest thing!
Oh wait! Y is, wow God is amazing in His creation! Cant wait to find out more about it!

so...

again... based on your statement... there should be no conflict between "normal" scientists and creationist scientists.

Heck there are even evolutionary creationists...

There are essentially 2 pet peeves that "science" has against creationism.

Time and Origin.

You just dismissed origin, so time is your next one.

Next time.

None of the ways we "date" things is fully without anomaly or any other thing that really puts it all to shame.

Heck the silly London Hammer...

Look a hammer in 400 million year old rock! It must be from some vising ancient civilization - NO! it is from "the lost civilization" - no its from the pre-flood era and proves giants!

No wait...its some random hammer someone dropped and it got encased in broken up or dissolved old rock, its not really encased in "old rock" it is simply encased in "new rock" and took some of itself from the old rock.

OR

"dating" stuff is just wrong.
When a new Y is found that contradicts outstanding theories, new theories are developed to support the reason of existing of Y because science is interested in understanding evidence. Creationists do not have any evidence and are therefore not scientists. Science has nothing to say about creationism other than it lacks evidence, there are no pet peeves or conflicts on the science side. The conflict comes from the creationists because conflict is all they have as there is no evidence to argue over. This is easily seen in many places where such discussions take place, with here being a good example. Evolution comes up as a point of discussion and the creationists instantly jump on it to argue their thoughts on creation when no one brought creation up in the first place. We get it, you have to defend your positions with zealously because you have nothing else to support your stance. But can we not? Your stance is based on non falsifiable belief that has no evidence, what is there to discuss?
 

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,964
So now someone who believes in creationism cannot be a scientist?
American Inventor are you retarded? One cant scientifically study creationism. Creationists can be scientists just fine.
 

Phazael

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
14,114
30,214
What wormie said. The only problem occurs if someone uses confirmation bias to inject their beliefs into their science. This can happen with either religious belief or secular belief (see SJW). It is why objectivity is the most key trait of a good scientist and why the SJW cult are so opposed to objectivity.
 

Punko

Macho Ma'am
<Rickshaw Potatoes>
7,921
12,571
Its nice to see that most of us disagree on stuff, while everyone seems to agree Vanessa Vanessa is retarded.

Who could have guessed that bolt-on-tits show-them-on-forum attentionwhore would be retarded?

Everyone, that is.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Picard
Reactions: 1 users

Punko

Macho Ma'am
<Rickshaw Potatoes>
7,921
12,571
Vanessa Vanessa keep downvoting me, maybe if I get bored enough I'll nuke you into -10k reaction score.

I'm sure your employment income allows you to fight this easily.

You can complain about it like the bitch you are, which is the closest you'll ever get to being a woman.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Picard
Reactions: 1 users

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Religion, unlike gender, was created by humans.

Noone is born with a religious belief.

While the idea that everything was created by a being we don't know is something I could stand, the idea that said being is the god as described in Catholicism (or other religions) is a joke.
It's interesting. Left to themselves humans create religious structures.

You're right though, it's not some instinctual knowledge.

I guess it's just the first step in abstract tool making.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,896
What I enjoy is that your answer to Methhawk's post is what/how I would've answered too. The fundamental aspects of evolution I understand perfectly well. I merely think it's bullshit.


I fully and completely understand the fundamental aspects of the Christian God perfectly well. I merely think that it is bullshit.

We can go in circles here. Don't you see?

It is not enough for me to say that I 'understand Christianity'.

It is not enough for you to say that you 'understand Evolution'.

Each of us must display and execute this understanding to the satisfaction of the other.

On that note, Vanessa, my friend, you do not understand Evolution. I'm sorry but you don't. You understand Evolution to about the same degree that my 15 year old self understood Christianity. By the way that was one year before I read the Bible. I read the Bible at 16.

You still haven't read Origin, have you? Be honest.

If not, then you are just a copy of a copy of a copy. You have to dig down to the fundamental texts of whatever idea you are arguing or else you are just a Borg clone.

 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Tranny whisperer. Lol.

Tad had a mental break of some sort. Cocaine? Meth? Dunno, he's incomprehensible.

Nessas just weird.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,896
Tranny whisperer. Lol.

Tad had a mental break of some sort. Cocaine? Meth? Dunno, he's incomprehensible.

Nessas just weird.

Tad didn't have a mental break, Tad is a mental break.

Vanessa is prematurely enlightened. She has dug down 15 meters and congratulates herself for doing so. Rightly. But she fails to realize that she is 15 meters down into a strata that is at least 200 meters deep, if not much much more so.

The strata is probably millions of meters deep, to be honest. I might congratulate myself for reaching a thousand meters, but I am still a long way off.

I don't hate on someone who reaches 15 meters. 15 meters is better than 3. That being said, when you are measuring depth in the range of 10's of thousands of meters.... 15 seems awfully lackluster.

"I watched some 4-Horsemen videos, therefore I know what Evolution is" is some 15 meter shit.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,964
Tad didn't have a mental break, Tad is a mental break.

Vanessa is prematurely enlightened. She has dug down 15 meters and congratulates herself for doing so. Rightly. But she fails to realize that she is 15 meters down into a strata that is at least 200 meters deep, if not much much more so.

The strata is probably millions of meters deep, to be honest. I might congratulate myself for reaching a thousand meters, but I am still a long way off.

I don't hate on someone who reaches 15 meters. 15 meters is better than 3. That being said, when you are measuring depth in the range of 10's of thousands of meters.... 15 seems awfully lackluster.

"I watched some 4-Horsemen videos, therefore I know what Evolution is" is some 15 meter shit.
You still have hope. haHa :p
 

Il_Duce Lightning Lord Rule

Lightning Fast
<Charitable Administrator>
10,524
54,256
Tad didn't have a mental break, Tad is a mental break.

Vanessa is prematurely enlightened. She has dug down 15 meters and congratulates herself for doing so. Rightly. But she fails to realize that she is 15 meters down into a strata that is at least 200 meters deep, if not much much more so.

The strata is probably millions of meters deep, to be honest. I might congratulate myself for reaching a thousand meters, but I am still a long way off.

I don't hate on someone who reaches 15 meters. 15 meters is better than 3. That being said, when you are measuring depth in the range of 10's of thousands of meters.... 15 seems awfully lackluster.

"I watched some 4-Horsemen videos, therefore I know what Evolution is" is some 15 meter shit.
You're using meters?

Confirmed communist
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Worf
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 2 users
Status
Not open for further replies.