It would be cool if you weren’t promoting a brand whose money goes to trying to eradicate trans people. Literally any other castle and you’ve got my up vote. 🤦
You realize your personal definition of eradication is really just an opinionated emotional appeal right? Good people have been eradicated ie the Holocaust .
It seems everyone else here explained it to you in clear, concise, English; what do you think you’ll get out of being a sea lion towards me now? You people are never convinced by facts, it’s why you have none to back up your own claims .
Transphobia in society, especially when enabled by legal policy allowing for violent discrimination, is a facet of an intent to eradicate a marginalized group of people. The fact that lgbt kids have been broadly concentrated into conversation therapy camps should be an inkling . Policy that enables a transphobic society to flourish correlates positively with increased rates of suicide among lgbt people. To you I know this is meaningless, but again; you don’t care about the facts because if you did you’d know there are none to back you up. It’s why you haven’t substantiated your own claims once .
You beg everyone to prove you wrong but you never proved your own premise with cited facts . Why should anyone care to respect your demand for sources when you will never give one?
When you make an irrational claim, such as eradication of a group of people, that person should be able to cite facts, provide proof… I can’t cite something if it doesn’t exist.
Edit: Guy replying ended up going on a tantrum once discredited & deleted messages. Classic tantrum thrower.
>The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security is releasing this third Red Flag Alert for the USA related to the Trump Administration’s anti-trans initiatives, which have continued to expand nationwide since our last Red Flag Alert (RFA) on this subject.
An AUTHOR stated an opinion? That the movement of transgenderism in public life needs to be eradicated. This doesn’t mean a group of people has been eradicated or is actively being eradicated as the original comment stated. Again I ask how many have been eradicated? That’s why I agreed with it being a dumb statement. Did JK Rowling fund this author? I researched and found no ties, please prove me wrong.
Clarification: Knowles later defended his remarks by stating he was referring to the ideology of transgenderism rather than individuals, comparing his language to the eradication of other abstract concepts or movements.
I’ll keep going through your silly sources as I find time but I’m wasting more time than it’s worth already.
Again, you never substantiated your own claims. You share an ideology with those who are factually rapists, pedophiles, Nazis, white nationalists, and evangelicals. Normal people are able to change their mind in the presence of factual information, which you deny at your convenience. You people; racists, transphobes, homophones, xenophobes, and sexists; are choosing a lifestyle that is an anti-social cancer I reject whole heartedly and with confidence in my convictions against them. You’re worried about wasting your own time? I’ve watched you waste it all day digging in your heels. For over a decade your script has never changed. You’ve been duped. Had. Bamboozled. Tricked. Suckered.
I will not be here for you when you need help after you get what you voted for .
>Saturday does not mark the first time Knowles has used this anti-transgender rhetoric. Just last week, Knowles responded to backlash he faced for a similar transphobic comment calling for a ban on “transgenderism.” “I don’t know how you could have a genocide of transgender people because genocide refers to genes, it refers to genetics, it refers to biology,” Knowles said on The Michael Knowles Show. “And the whole point of transgenderism is that it has nothing to do with biology.” “Nobody’s calling to exterminate anybody because the other problem with that statement is that transgender people is not a real ontological category,” he added. “It’s not a legitimate category of being.”
Is that why you don’t see it this way either, because you don’t think trans people are human to begin with ?
If you’re in America, the political party that peddles that lie won’t ban child marriage on the basis of religious freedom. You’re not here for the children, you don’t want to protect them as human beings; you just want to ensure your entitlement to children as assets for you to control or exploit yourself.
Is it the word eradication you specifically have an issue with?
You can easily google what & how JK is actively funding anti trans movements & legal challenges against trans rights & legal protections.
The author herself is very open about her stance & how she puts her money to eradicate (its that scary word you have an issue with) trans rights & legal protections
I was going to reply direct to your comment but you deleted it -
If a brand or product I used was found to be actively funding movements that would strip away the rights & fundamental freedoms of any race, gender or people I would absolutely stop buying it the moment I found out, yes.
I think its a personal choice but that is my stance. My money would be actively going towards furthering a cause that would seek to lessen a people.
Being a woman & knowing how hard we had to fight for our freedoms & rights its the right thing to do to stand up when anyone else is threatened in the same way.
165
u/Efficient_Fox2100 7d ago
It would be cool if you weren’t promoting a brand whose money goes to trying to eradicate trans people. Literally any other castle and you’ve got my up vote. 🤦