@bikeymcbikeface.bsky.social

Hey what did you mean by this factually incorrect statement? Why are you spreading a widely known false claim routinely asserted by Holocaust denialists?

The better policy is fucking equality in law. Like, what is it about equality in law that you find so unbelievable?

You people always have a way of fucking revealing yourselves, don't you?

And like, I don't know how you type out "it doesn't negate trans equality"

It does! It objectively DOES negate trans equality, because trans people are being treated unequally to their cis peers! You know how "separate but equal" was an obvious lie? You just lied!

◦ Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lower-body strength • Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lung function • Transgender women had a higher percentage of fat mass, lower fat-free mass, and weaker handgrip strength compared to cisgender men • Transgender women's bone density was found to be equivalent to that of cisgender women, which is linked to muscle strength There were no reaningful differences found between the two groups' hemoglobin profiles (a key factor in athletic performance)

Wrong

Then you've shrunk your voter base by >0.05% for no gain, not even counting those who love and care about that small marginalized group of people who will resent you for sacrificing them.

You're not in power now.

Who fuckin' cares? We're talking about Buttigieg right now and this is what he's selling. It needs to be condemned, now.

bsky.app/profile/lumi...

Because in the same interview he proposed that individual sporting associations should be allowed to ban trans people based on however many transphobic cunts they deliberately pack into the governing body, as we've seen transphobic cunts do on purpose time and time again

"Labour are unelectable with him as leader".

Do you have problems with memory retention?

If you're starting the discourse by saying "men are feeling isolated and shut out of relationships", well, guess what? There's another party to this conversation! And in your opening statement, they are NOT present, and that's WEIRD!

Thissssss!

Any, ANY conversation about the state of relationships or the accessibility of relationships, has to start from the position of "these are mutual! They only happen when TWO (or more) people find a reason to get into them and stay in them!"

You can't have this conversation by yourselves!

Dan, you can't have both sides of the conversation to yourself.

Well, that's not true. You can, but you will have to do so without me. I'm simply not going to be your stand-in for all these fucking accusations, mate.

I've seen worse straw men. You'll have to excuse me if I tell you I've never heard of women's dating choices described as 'fascistic' before.

Because you literally stated early in the conversation that you were gay and this isn't necessarily relevant to you.

You have absolutely lost me. People have personal autonomy in deciding who they want to be in a relationship with.

You literally, _literally_, said, "what inherent autonomy?". Am I misquoting you?

Because I don't understand why you're drawing that distinction. It doesn't make sense to me that you're drawing that distinction and I'm asking you why you are drawing that distinction. Why on earth would you get upset about that?

And can you point out where I said that?

Because, again, I'm not going to defend an argument you've concocted for me.

Give me an example of something you found rude.

Dan, I suggested that people have inherent autonomy in relationships, and you literally said "what inherent autonomy?"

I don't know what baggage you're bringing to this conversation. But it ends now.

How have I been rude? What are you talking about?

That's a very bizarre series of inferences to draw.

Maybe I just disagree with things you're saying, Dan. That doesn't necessitate whatever you've just accused me of.

I didn't say that and I'm not going to defend some argument that you've concocted for me.

I don't know what your problem is. I have no idea what possessed you to become abusive, but it's absolutely uncalled for and unacceptable.

Why are you calling me a loon, Dan?

You're being incredibly abrasive.

Why didn't we? Is it because we don't have the media apparatus, nor the capital ownership to push back on these sorts of pressures in the kind of 10000% manner that feels appropriate?

"What inherent autonomy?"

Dan, you get to decide who you get in a relationship with. You have the inherent autonomy to decide that for yourself. It's actually pretty fucked up if someone tries to compel or coerce you otherwise.

I didn't think that was contentious.

Why do you keep specifying cis men and women?

And I don't have a problem with a more body-positive media environment etc, but it seems to me we had that and it got a lot of backlash from the psychos about how they weren't attracted to fat women, even pretty ones.

That's a right-wing attack angle, though, not a left-wing one.

Like, ultimately your argument seems to be that there's folks out there who, for any number of reasons, find it hard to get into relationships.

The right-wing seem to be approaching this issue by blackpilling people into shooting up their local synagogue. I'm not sure that's going to work.

I'm literally talking with you right now about the issue, don't be daft.

I just don't see how any solution doesn't immediately bash up against people's inherent autonomy.