Look at this piece of ****, running his penis fly trap without addressing the OP.maineman » 09 May 2023, 7:49 pm » wrote: ↑ hey asshole... when are you gonna apologize?
NWP ****.... NWP.
No, distraction boy, that is NOT the question being begged.razoo » 06 May 2023, 7:29 am » wrote: ↑ .............. which begs the question why is it that women get so much **** for becoming pregnant considering without male sperm this cannot happen?
Are you saying trannies are "real" women, fruity?razoo » 06 May 2023, 7:35 am » wrote: ↑ You don't know this .................. neither do fake right wing news sources
And you will defend - HAVE DEFENDED - grown men demanding a "right" to cavort with other men's young children on the public dime, wearing exaggerated, hypersexualized women-suits and cavorting about in a sexually suggestive manner.ScottMon » 08 May 2023, 10:44 am » wrote: ↑ As usual, You're trying to win an argument by putting words in my mouth. Yes, Only biological human females can carry a baby to term. Here's the point you DON'T get: If someone wants to put on lipstick or a dress and change their pronouns, I don't give a ****. I will respect their wishes and go about my day.
They very much DO give a **** - they want access, you lying piece of garbage.ScottMon » 08 May 2023, 10:46 am » wrote: ↑ Statistically, Transgenders are more likely to be the victim.
BTW, Did you know that rapist and molesters don't give a **** about a bathroom sign?
sootedupCyndi » 10 May 2023, 11:33 pm » wrote: ↑ I know. What in the hell brought this foolishness all on?
Red herring - No one has ever said it does, dishonest creep.Xavier_Onassis » 08 May 2023, 10:26 am » wrote: ↑ It does not actually matter whether a man can actually turn into a woman. The issue is the right of the man in question to entertain his own personal desires. If a man chooses to wear women's clothing and makeup, it does not harm anyone. Nor does it harm anyone but the man or woman in question to have their genitals surgically altered to resemble the genitals of the opposite sex.
You sure like to mouth ****, fruitcake.Xavier_Onassis » 08 May 2023, 10:41 am » wrote: ↑ So far, all the fools protesting transsexuals are men.
You referring to police, you stupid creep?Xavier_Onassis » 10 May 2023, 12:24 pm » wrote: ↑ 200 people shot in just this year.
good guys with guns offer no alibis as to why they were not there to save the day.
it is not the 1880's. women have been wearing pants for over a hundred years.Xavier_Onassis » 05 May 2023, 10:22 am » wrote: ↑ Why not pass a law making it illegal for women to wear pants and other items of men's clothing?
The misogynist needed a red herring.jerrab » 11 May 2023, 1:41 am » wrote: ↑ it is not the 1880's. women have been wearing pants for over a hundred years.
Or a woman.
numbskull.Xavier_Onassis » 05 May 2023, 10:22 am » wrote: ↑ Why not pass a law making it illegal for women to wear pants and other items of men's clothing?
Beekeeper » 10 May 2023, 5:06 am » wrote: ↑ Hardly, IDIOT!! Take away the GUNS of law abiding citizens, and there will be even MORE bloodshed since ONLY the CRIMINALS AND NUTCASES will own guns since they DON'T ABIDE BY THE LAWS!!
And that definitely puts BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS!!

When you get some TRUTH, we'll be sure to point it our to you. SO FAR, you have only your IDIOTIC BLOVIATING you can call upon. AKA LIES!!
Beekeeper » 11 May 2023, 3:06 pm » wrote: ↑ When you get some TRUTH, we'll be sure to point it our to you. SO FAR, you have only your IDIOTIC BLOVIATING you can call upon. AKA LIES!!
Greta WHO, DOOFUS CUCKBREATH??Punch » 11 May 2023, 3:09 pm » wrote: ↑ Listen to Greta or you won't be beekeeping for much longer, A-wipe.
you want to do what ever you want to do and anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.ScottMon » 09 May 2023, 9:34 pm » wrote: ↑ You're dismissing the majority of mass shooters. Your argument is based upon your own bigotry against LGBTQ people.